The Bible is Catholic -

[Gabriel_of_12]

Well, personally, I would class much of the “apologetics” here at CA as going way beyond the bounds of “defense.” And I don’t mind that myself. it is good to be challenged.

Protestant 101 I find your wording somtimes confusing? For one SDA’s are not truly protestant, SDA’s have not been in existance that long. The leadership of the SDA’s are a splinter or breakoff from the true protestants, who still hold to the sacraments of the Catholic church. When you explain Protestant views in your commentary really goes against Protestantism and Catholicism. I only state this, because I find some of your concepts of christianity going against the main grain of 2000 years of Christianity.

I would like to just mention, it would be hard for you to accept the true teachings of Jesus Christ, until you come to the knowledge that Jesus is God incarnate, and has fulfilled the Law and the Prophets.

I understand that you resist the biblical historical facts of the Bible because in order to accept this truth, it will begin to demolish your new advent christian belief foundation on authority, to which Jesus Christ instituted on earth, and it sure was not SDA’s, your new belief does not reach back into antiquity,nor its practices.

I know, SDA’s have a very new perspective on Sabbath, and death and who Jesus is including the life after death. I would just leave you with this comment about the Sabbath. Because Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, SDA’s deny the sacrifice of Jesus, because SDA’s pretend to honor the old covenant Sabbath, which required many laws of sacrifice, that SDA do not honor. Moses will be the one to judge the old covenant Sabbath, and I dont think SDA come close to honoring the true old covenant Sabbath. You may claim that Jesus fulfilled the Law and so you dont need to follow the 666 laws that pertain to honoring the True Sabbath of the old covenant.

I will anwser by stating, Catholics are Eucharistic people,(of thanksgiving) We worship in Spirit and in Truth. And those who are of the Spirit their is no Law, and those of the flesh the Law remains. What is confusing is SDA teach the Law of the old covenant, but do not practice it to the Letter, for Jesus came to fulfill every letter of the Law. That is why I think SDA teachings of the Sabbath, deny Who Jesus is, and deny what he did to save us from the Law.(flesh). to Which SDA’s are force feeding their communities about a Law that Jesus fulfilled.

True; the Sabbath is not abolished, but fulfilled, by Jesus. When one is baptised into the body of Jesus Christ, this one is now a child of God, and of the Spirit, and the spiritual person judges everything and is not judged by anyone, for we have the mind of Jesus Christ.

I am sure there is much more to be said here, So I will close, hoping that a little light may shine in the darkness. The most beautiful thing in the universe is that which is felt by the Heart, for the flesh of the mind brings pride and destruction, and knowledge without faith remains flesh.

Peace be with you

 

[mercygate]

I would like to just mention, it would be hard for you to accept the true teachings of Jesus Christ, until you come to the knowledge that Jesus is God incarnate, and has fulfilled the Law and the Prophets.

Are you implying that SDAs do not have an orthodox doctrine of God? On their website they give a description of the Trinity that would pass muster in any Catholic or mainline non-Catholic Christian forum.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Are you implying that SDAs do not have an orthodox doctrine of God? On their website they give a description of the Trinity that would pass muster in any Catholic or mainline non-Catholic Christian forum.

The words used by SDA’s mirror the Words of the ancient church but are not believed the same, be careful for example (soul). Now I am referencing their founders, today SDA’s do not believe exactly the same as their founders once did, so to me as they learn more, they will change their doctrines, to fit to the already revealed teachings of Jesus.

They have invented new christian teachings (example Sabbath), and changed to fit their everchanging doctrines. I will leave you just with one thought along these lines. SDA’s have made a prophecy that Jesus was to return on a confirmed date: It did not happen: Change in doctrinal belief changes to support their failed prophecy. God has not and does not Lie!

What I have trouble understanding about SDA’s is why they deny the works of Jesus Christ. Jesus said if you dont believe what I tell you, then believe in what I do. SDA’s dont believe either, but use the language of the Catholic church to decieve those using the same terms of belief, but teaching a different doctrine altogether. That is why they are neither protestant nor catholic in any way.

Peace be with you

 

[anthony022071]

Protestant101

The Bible is always it’s own best Expositor; or as Martin Luther put it, Scripture is its own light.

That’s not what St. Peter thought.

2 Peter 3:15-17
“Our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men…”

Peter and Paul belonged to the same Church that Ignatius called the Catholic Church. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth,as Paul wrote,and so scripture must be interpreted in light of the teachings of the Church.

See post 607.

 

[jblake]

Lilyflower;:

since Scripture is seen as superior to all, so that a Church is not necessary to define it. But the Church DID define it by deciding which books to include and which not to include and which texts within books, when the Bible was first canonised.

That at least half a dozen different organizations who can claim a historical record back to the first century, have defined different books to be canonical.

Taking either the union or intersection of all of the texts deemed to be canonical by at least one organization, results in a canon that has no organization claiming the result to be canonical.

xan

jonathon

 

[joe370]

Protestant 101, you said: *"You and others have utterly failed to show how a Protestant is “limited” by having/wanting “the Bible only.” *

In order to fail you must first attempt, and I am not attempting to show you how a "Protestant is “limited” by having/wanting “the Bible only.” I am simply showing you, how I as a former protestant was “limited” by having/wanting “the Bible only.” Your journey to “Truth” is just that—yours and yours alone!

You obviously believe in the inspiration of the Old Testament considering the fact that you cite many verses from it in the attempt to support your belief in sola scriptura, which by the way, is simply an exercise in futility. There isn’t one word in the O.T. that supports the bible alone doctrine; quite the contrary! This would have been, not only preposterous to the personages of the O.T. but quite foreign and inapplicable as well. Not to mention the fact that the N.T. didn’t even exist in its final format until the end of the 4th century which would imply, from the perspective of the O.T. personage that sola scriptura would only include the O.T. —the Law (the first five books or Pentateuch), the Prophets (our historical and prophetic books) and finally the Writings (especially the wisdom literature, in particular the Psalms).

Moses wrote down the first five books of the OT. The events he recorded were thousands of years before his time. You believe that God preserved, safeguarded and orally transmitted these Sacred Traditions to Moses several thousand years later —WHY? In doing so, you must embrace sacred oral tradition, or prove that these traditions were in fact passed down through the centuries via sacred written tradition, which would be pretty tough considering the fact that the oldest extant Old Testament manuscripts only date to A.D. 900!!! According to your own words, below in quotes, the written word of God (scripture) is the quintessential and all sufficient element. How do you reconcile that belief system with the preceding?

“But as far as something being “Scripture;” I can only point to the Bible.”

You said:

“They must ask the Spirit who inspired the Word to illuminate, shape,and modify their pre-understandings according to the Word, and to guard their understandings to remain faithful to the Word.”

*“Thy Word is a Lamp unto my feet; and a Light unto my path.” *(Ps.119:105)

Are you really citing Psalm 119:105 as proof that the bible can stand alone as God’s sole authority? Based on verses like this, do you really think the bible is all sufficient as you claimed in a previous post?

(1) The bible is never referred to as the “Word” (upper-case) which, according to John 1 is a reference to Jesus.

(2) The bible, as we know it today, technically (according to the doctrine of sola scriptura) should not be referred to as the word (lower case) or as the word of God because men like Mark and Luke did not view the word, or word of God, as our canonized, codified bible, they never even saw the finished product, and most certainly, they were referring to the actual words spoken by Jesus to the apostles, that were handed down to them via “word” or “epistle” If you cite the following:

Mark 16:20 " And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them], and confirming the word with signs following. Amen."

Luke 1:2 "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word"

…you must keep in mind that the canonized bible didn’t exist when these words were uttered by these men, therefore it is taken out of its proper context when used to reference the bible as a whole.

(3) The H.S. didn’t inspire an inanimate collection of books; the H.S. inspired the prophets prior to Jesus’ incarnation, and the Catholic Apostolic church following Jesus’ ascension, according to your bible (Pentecost)!

(4) When you say, “they” are “to remain faithful to the Word” and you are referring to Jesus, then I agree, but if you are referring to the bible, then your bible disagrees. Nowhere in the bible does it enjoin Christians to be faithful to the bible.

 

[joe370]

During Jesus’ ministry, none of the New Testament books were written, and very few during the lives of the apostles. When they were eventually written, probably by the end of the 1st century, it was the Catholic Apostolic Church established by Christ that preserved and safeguarded these Books of the Bible, moved and inspired by the Holy Spirit. These were the last words spoken by Jesus to His apostolic church, and yes the church existed before Jesus ascended; it was just in its infancy, Matthew 16:18:

*“But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.” *

If the “word” was of such paramount importance to Jesus (not to say that it isn’t important to the C.C., because it is, after all, it was given to us by the C.C. out of necessity due to the various heretical movements laying claim to apostolic tradition and apostolic scripture) —don’t you think Jesus would have created it instead of the church and given it to the apostles to be distributed among the people to be self interpreted? —Instead Jesus created a Church and gave His apostles the “keys” ( a sign of authority in any institution) to His church. If one of the many protestants churches could lay claim to Matthew 16: 16-19, you know they would, instead they reject it using silly refutations like the petra/petros argument or Jesus is the rock or its Peter’s confession.

The church is mentioned 118 times in the KJV Bible - assembly, 3; church, 115.

See for yourself in the New Testament Greek Lexicon:

studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1577

Below are just a few examples :

Mt 16:18 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Mt 18:17 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Col 1:18 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.

Col 1:24 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
NowI rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my fleshI do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions.

Eph 1:22 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

Eph 3:10 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

Eph 3:21 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

Eph 5:23 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Eph 5:24 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Eph 5:25 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

Eph 5:27 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

Eph 5:29 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

Eph 5:32 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
This is a great mystery: butI speak concerning Christ and the church.

Jas 5:14 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

 

[joe370]

The “word” as most protestants like to bandy about (I know I did as a former Lutheran) is never used to describe the bible —see for yourself:

studylight.org/lex/grk/search.cgi?word=word+&search.x=0&search.y=0&search=Lookup

Once more, when you get a chance, could you please answer the following question by Lampo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protestant101 View Post

The Bible is always it’s own best Expositor; or as Martin Luther put it, Scripture is its own light.

How would this statement apply if it was the year 107AD?

 

[Hisalone]

The “word” as most protestants like to bandy about (I know I did as a former Lutheran) is never used to describe the bible —see for yourself:

studylight.org/lex/grk/search.cgi?word=word+&search.x=0&search.y=0&search=Lookup

Once more, when you get a chance, could you please answer the following question by Lampo?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protestant101 View Post

The Bible is always it’s own best Expositor; or as Martin Luther put it, Scripture is its own light.

How would this statement apply if it was the year 107AD?

Hebrews 8:
8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds F34 I will remember no more.” F35

What has been lost is the power of Christs Church @ Pentecost foward. When all knew God and His power great signs and wonders great conversions.All knew God then we got the magesterium.

 

[Protestant101]

Are you really citing Psalm 119:105 as proof that the bible can stand alone as God’s sole authority? Based on verses like this, do you really think the bible is all sufficient as you claimed in a previous post?

I have had some really nasty things said either to me or about me on this forum for saying that “Catholics are taught to denigrate the authority of the Bible;” yet comments such as your continue to persist. What else could anyone possibly think, especially Protestants, when they read such opinionated draconian claims about how weak and insufficient God’s holy Word supposedly is?

“Thy Word” (Ps.119:105) means exactly what it says. Why are you striving so to change it?

I think you are on your way to becoming a Protestant again. You quote the Bible a lot for someone who really believes that it is so “insufficient.”

 

[joe370]

I have had some really nasty things said either to me or about me on this forum for saying that “Catholics are taught to denigrate the authority of the Bible;” yet comments such as your continue to persist. What else could anyone possibly think, especially Protestants, when they read such opinionated draconian claims about how weak and insufficient God’s holy Word supposedly is?

“Thy Word” (Ps.119:105) means exactly what it says. Why are you striving so to change it?

Does it have anything to do with the N.T.?

I think you are on your way to becoming a Protestant again. You quote the Bible a lot for someone who really believes that it is so “insufficient.”

Phew, I had to look that one up…

dra·co·ni·an (dr-kn-n, dr-)
adj. Exceedingly harsh; very severe: a draconian legal code; draconian budget cuts.

You really think my post was “Exceedingly harsh; very severe.” I didn’t say anything derogatory about you nor would I!!! As a matter of fact I have said, at other posts, that I respect you and your right to believe in the bible as the sole authority!!! Obviously you didn’t read this post, and obviously you aren’t going to answer Lampo’s question.

You call my post nothing more than “opinionated draconian claims” yet at the same time you say I quote from the bible a lot. I didn’t write the bible, so how can it be my opinion? That is the very reason I use the bible to prove my points, otherwise I will be told I am being opinionated and duped by the C.C. I have been repeatedly railed by these diatribes ever since I became a catholic. However I don’t take it personally; it’s not worth it!

You said, "I have had some really nasty things said either to me or about me on this forum for saying that “Catholics are taught to denigrate the authority of the Bible;”— Really? —I am very sorry for that!!! Correct me if I am wrong but don’t protestant, not all protestants denigrate the C.C. as the whore of Babylon, the anti-Christ and other vicious unwarranted barbs? I am not saying that you say these things, and you shouldn’t say that I denigrate you or the Bible!

Why do you continue to say that catholic’s are taught to denigrate the authority of the bible? Catholics don’t denigrate the bible, they simply acknowledge it for what it is: the inerrant word of God, LOVED, cherished and revered by all catholic’s, but it is not a systematic presentation of all that was in the Deposit of Faith. Both Oral Tradition and Scripture “come from the same divine wellspring.” A shorthand formula for this is: Deposit of Faith = Sacred Oral Tradition + Sacred Scriptures.

 

[joe370]

Oral Tradition–Jesus commissioned the Apostles to “go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations. Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you” (Mt.28: 19-20). He promised that the Holy Spirit would “instruct you in everything and remind you of all that I have told you” (John 14:26). Just before his ascension into heaven Jesus said, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mk16:15). He commanded them to do precisely what He himself had done, namely, deliver the Word of God to the people by the living voice and granted them, through the Holy Spirit, the gift of tongues. He told them, “He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

It was by this oral Apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which books should be included in the New Testament. Many were already in use in the house churches (Christianity was “underground” for three centuries and much persecuted) St. Augustine endorses the same position when he says: “I should not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church” (Con. epist. Manichaei, fundam., n. 6). As St. Paul urged in his epistle, 2 Thessalonians 2: 15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”

Sacred Scripture/the Bible–The Bible consists of the Old and New Testaments. The Church and the faith existed before the New Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus died between 30-33 A.D., but none of the Books were written before about 45-50 A.D. and only 3 or 4 of the twelve Apostles were among the human writers. In the mean time many thousands or even millions were converted before the Bible canon (73 books) was agreed upon. The New Testament was created by the Church, not the reverse as is sometimes maintained. The 27 books that would go into the New Testament, the canon, were not decided upon until the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. met under the authority of Pope Damasus I and this was reaffirmed at subsequent Councils at Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 397 A.D. (this latter is the one accepted by many Protestants). Many other books were in use by the Church from the Gospels of Peter and Thomas to the letters of Barnabas and Clement, but these were not determined to be a part of inspired Scripture. It could be argued that it is not logical for Protestants to accept the New Testament and yet reject the authority of the Catholic Church which provided it. It is also important to note that most people could not read in ancient times and only wealthy families could afford to purchase the papyrus on which books were written. In fact, only in the 20th century have most people around the globe become literate. The concept of the “'Bible alone” is therefore, neither practical, historical or Biblical since no verses in the Bible state that this is the case. This is rather a doctrine that took hold in some Protestant denominations during the Reformation.

I didn’t denigrate you or the most profound, far-reaching and unfathomable book ever written.

As I said before on this thread, I absolutely agree with all my heart that all scripture collected, selected, compiled, edited and finally codified by the authoritative C.C. is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. I ABSOLUTELY LOVE MY BIBLE WHETHER IT’S A K.J.B VERSION OR A NEW JERUSALEM VERSION AND I READ IT EVERYDAY AND TRUST EVERY WORD OF IT BECAUSE THE INFALLIBLE HOLY SPIRIT VIA JESUS’ ESTABLISHED CHURCH MADE SURE THAT THE VERY FALLIBLE C.C. WOULD GET IT RIGHT…

Sorry you took my post the wrong way…

God bless…

 

[joe370]

If the 1st century Christians, members of the apostolic church of the Thessalonians, (one of many apostolic churches created by the apostles and their disciples)…

“Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God (no denominations at this particular juncture; churches always referred to apostolic churches) for your patience and faith in all. 2 Thessalonians 1

…**were enjoined to **“…stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 —and the Holy Spirit, since Pentecost is “forever” guiding the apostolic church until Jesus’ second coming— shouldn’t the 21st century members of that same apostolic church stand firm and hold to the traditions which were/are taught by the 21st century apostolic church, either by word of mouth or by letter.

“word of mouth” (Sacred Tradition) + “or by letter” (Sacred Scripture) which of course = the Deposit of Faith! Thessalonians 2: 15

(Paul represents the apostolic church, considering the fact that he is personally responsible for quite a few of them)

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest **know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” **1 Timothy 3:15

Some food for thought…

 

[Protestant101]

Why do you continue to say that catholic’s are taught to denigrate the authority of the bible? Catholics don’t denigrate the bible, they simply acknowledge it for what it is: the inerrant word of God, LOVED, cherished and revered by all catholic’s, but it is not a systematic presentation of all that was in the Deposit of Faith.

Happy Sabbath Joe!!

I would just add for now that the Bible is the opposite of what you say it is; it actually is a systematic presentation of all that was/is in the “Deposit of Faith.” There should be nothing within Sacred Tradition" that is not somehow indicated within the pages of Holy Scripture. By your Church’s very definition of Tradition; I don’t see how you can deny that. When I say that Catholics “denigrate the Bible’s authority;” it certainly is not intended personally against the many really nice Christian people in your Church who would never think to do such a thing deliberately. But any of us, Protestant or Catholic, are susceptible to denigration of the Bible by our beliefs, if we do not freely check same by the Bible. What are you so scared of, if ALL of your “Tradition” is in fact Biblical?

 

[wisdomseeker]

If the 1st century Christians, members of the apostolic church of the Thessalonians, (one of many apostolic churches created by the apostles and their disciples)…

“Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth; So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God (no denominations at this particular juncture; churches always referred to apostolic churches) for your patience and faith in all. 2 Thessalonians 1

…**were enjoined to **“…stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thessalonians 2: 15 —and the Holy Spirit, since Pentecost is “forever” guiding the apostolic church until Jesus’ second coming— shouldn’t the 21st century members of that same apostolic church stand firm and hold to the traditions which were/are taught by the 21st century apostolic church, either by word of mouth or by letter.

“word of mouth” (Sacred Tradition) + “or by letter” (Sacred Scripture) which of course = the Deposit of Faith! Thessalonians 2: 15

(Paul represents the apostolic church, considering the fact that he is personally responsible for quite a few of them)

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest **know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” **1 Timothy 3:15

Some food for thought…

Joe

your explanation is so beautiful and charible. thank you for representint the Church so well.

how hard it is for protestants to see the light. even after this P101 still finds fault with it.

until they see the Church like we do, it will be hard for them to understand the Word. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word became Flesh.”

they seem more concern with what they were told by man than what the Bible is really saying.

somehow they got the idea that God gives just anyone the interpretation of the SS, when in truth througout the history in the Bible God always chooses people to do His work and not just anyone. God never spoke to all.

Someone told them that catholics are wrong and they believed.

As God chose few to lead the Israelites so Jesus chose few to lead His Church.

Here is a quote to P101

Vincent of Lerins AD 434 -
1.
Here someone may ask: since the canon of scriptures is complete, and is in itself adequate, why is there any need to join to its authority the understanding of the church? Because Holy Scripture, on account of its depth, is not accepted in a universal sense. The same statements are interpreted in one way by one person, in another sense by someone else, with the result that there seem to be as many opinions as there are people…Therefore, on account of the number and variety of errors, there is a need for someone to lay down a rule for the interpretation of the prophets and the apostles in such a way that it is directed by the rule of the catholic church.
(As quoted in Not By Scripture Alone, pg. 367)

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by joe370
Why do you continue to say that catholic’s are taught to denigrate the authority of the bible? Catholics don’t denigrate the bible, they simply acknowledge it for what it is: the inerrant word of God, LOVED, cherished and revered by all catholic’s, but it is not a systematic presentation of all that was in the Deposit of Faith.

If I may interject here.
What you say is very true and in fact there really isn’t anything in Sacred Tradition which is not “somehow indicated within the pages of Holy Scripture”.
What ever gave you the idea there was?
You seem to misunderstand what Sacred Tradition is. It is not something seperate and apart from Sacred Scripture but rather an integral part of it. That is why there is such danger in seperating the Bible from Tradition.

Sacred Tradition is that body of knowledge, writings, understandings etc that have been passed down through the oral teachings of the apostles who personally trained the first and second generation Church leaders. It is the basis used by the Magisterium for understanding scripture because it is the way that the early Church understood it. By Early Church I mean those who were personally aquainted with the apostles or their direct disciples.

When the Bible is seperated from that Ancient Tradition, it is removed from the context within which it was written and understood. It leaves the individual alone and the farther removed one gets from the source of the Bible, which is the Church, the more difficult it becomes.
Just take a look at the History of the Protestant Reformation for proof. The Lutheren Church and the Anglicans certainly retained much of the “Traditional” Catholic teachings on Sacraments, the Ministry, Mary etc. But the further down the historical line we go the more of the tradition is rejected and the more protestant splits there are until we come to today.

So in summary your premise that Tradition is somehow “unbiblical” is wrong. The problem is not that Tradition is unbiblical, but rather that protestants refuse to accept the “Traditional” understandings of Scripture.

Peace
James

 

[Ronald_E]

Happy Sabbath Joe!!

What are you so scared of, if ALL of your “Tradition” is in fact Biblical?

Why would you ask this question? It is very apparent how much Joe loves our faith. Where there is love there is no fear. Where there is lack of love there is fear and division. Catholicism unites through God’s love. That is why the Catholic Church put the bible together, to unite all in God’s love. It was through the human desire to be special and superior to others that people created divisions with their own interpretations so they as individuals would have that special knowledge that would attract others into their individual belief system. They appealed to that human desire to be special because of the underlying fear of being nothing.

 

[Protestant101]

Sacred Tradition is that body of knowledge, writings, understandings etc that have been passed down through the oral teachings of the apostles who personally trained the first and second generation Church leaders. It is the basis used by the Magisterium for understanding scripture because it is the way that the early Church understood it. By Early Church I mean those who were personally aquainted with the apostles or their direct disciples.

James

The only trouble here James is that some of what you call “Tradition” was not in existence during the first few centuries. It came later. Some "catholic Tradition’ took a number of years to “develop.”

 

[Protestant101]

Why would you ask this question? It is very apparent how much Joe loves our faith. Where there is love there is no fear. Where there is lack of love there is fear and division. Catholicism unites through God’s love. That is why the Catholic Church put the bible together, to unite all in God’s love. It was through the human desire to be special and superior to others that people created divisions with their own interpretations so they as individuals would have that special knowledge that would attract others into their individual belief system. They appealed to that human desire to be special because of the underlying fear of being nothing.

I didn’t question whether or not Joe loves his faith. I asked him what he was scared of.

As far as I can understand, while the Catholic Church, on an official basis “unites through God’s love;” they also demand as the litmus test of this “love” unity, which equals, to them, submission to the Pope. They will never consider anything else as true “unity” or “love.”

Whenever you demand love, it is usually something else. I can only praise the Lord that many individual Catholics do not have this attitude of calling this “demanding of unity” “Christian love.”

 

[Ronald_E]

I didn’t question whether or not Joe loves his faith. I asked him what he was scared of.

As far as I can understand, while the Catholic Church, on an official basis “unites through God’s love;” they also demand as the litmus test of this “love” unity, which equals, to them, submission to the Pope. They will never consider anything else as true “unity” or “love.”

Whenever you demand love, it is usually something else. I can only praise the Lord that many individual Catholics do not have this attitude of calling this “demanding of unity” “Christian love.”

I returned after 40 years away because of love and the Grace of God without asking for either. The Church does not demand unity, it prays for unity because that is God’s desire. I submit to the position of the Pope as God’s leader of His Church here on earth and the structure that it represents in Heaven as is indicated in the Lord’s Prayer. Each minister in non-catholic traditions places themselves in their own position of authority.
Our faith does not demand love. Love is required to live our Catholic faith in order to understand how God’s love is revealed in the teachings of our Catholic faith. Sin on the other hand darkens our understanding of our faith and the sacrament of confession is the path towards humility and foregiveness which brings us closer to understanding God’s love and thus renews our sight.