The Bible is Catholic -

[JRKH]

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.”

Here we will get into areas where terminology and word meanings are crucial.
Since I don’t know what “catholic tradition” you are refering to, I don’t know if it is actually “Tradition” or “Doctrine” or “Teaching”. Regardless of which catagory it falls into however, you can be sure that it is, “somehow indicated within the pages of Holy Scripture”.

The “trouble” here P101 is not that the church teachings, doctrines, understandings have developed over time. That is perfectly normal. The problem rather is that, because you do not accept the teachings and authority of The Church and Sacred Tradition and you refuse to accept the “Traditional” understandings of Scripture, you refuse to see that our doctrines are, in fact, “somehow indicated within the pages of Holy Scripture”. Instead you stand on the outside, trying to discern that which as already been discerned and taught by persons much closer to the source than you or I.

I have seen you post things like, “That verse proves nothing”, or words to that effect. Perhaps the verses in question do not prove something conclusively, but you cannot reasonably deny the verses “indicate” something. So where one person sees “Proof” another only sees “indication” or sees something entirely different.

Then what are we to do? We are to “Take it to The Church.” We are to listen to Her and submit to Her Authority. Why Should we Do this? Because Jesus Himself Ordained it so. Where is this Church? It is the Universal Church of Jesus Himself. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Consistantly tracable back to the Apostles themselves.

Please note that, I am not relying on anything “alluded to”, or merely, “indicated” in the Bible, but to Jesus direct command to His followers. No amount of twisting or “reading into” will change either the command, or the Church Jesus was refering to.

Our long and inconclusive discussions here certainly are testimony to the fact that the Bible by itself cannot be the final authority by itself. We need an authority to teach us and guard teh Truth. Jesus knew this and gave us the Church, based on oral teachings which is Tradition. From this Oral Tradition, grew the Bible as we know it today. The ancient understandings of the Bible can be found in Catholic teachings in the Catechism, complete with references and footnotes. - and it is ALL “indicated in the Holy Scriptures”.

Peace
James

 

[wisdomseeker]

Here we will get into areas where terminology and word meanings are crucial.
Since I don’t know what “catholic tradition” you are refering to, I don’t know if it is actually “Tradition” or “Doctrine” or “Teaching”. Regardless of which catagory it falls into however, you can be sure that it is, “somehow indicated within the pages of Holy Scripture”.

The “trouble” here P101 is not that the church teachings, doctrines, understandings have developed over time. That is perfectly normal. The problem rather is that, because you do not accept the teachings and authority of The Church and Sacred Tradition and you refuse to accept the “Traditional” understandings of Scripture, you refuse to see that our doctrines are, in fact, “somehow indicated within the pages of Holy Scripture”. Instead you stand on the outside, trying to discern that which as already been discerned and taught by persons much closer to the source than you or I.

I have seen you post things like, “That verse proves nothing”, or words to that effect. Perhaps the verses in question do not prove something conclusively, but you cannot reasonably deny the verses “indicate” something. So where one person sees “Proof” another only sees “indication” or sees something entirely different.

Then what are we to do? We are to “Take it to The Church.” We are to listen to Her and submit to Her Authority. Why Should we Do this? Because Jesus Himself Ordained it so. Where is this Church? It is the Universal Church of Jesus Himself. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Consistantly tracable back to the Apostles themselves.

Please note that, I am not relying on anything “alluded to”, or merely, “indicated” in the Bible, but to Jesus direct command to His followers. No amount of twisting or “reading into” will change either the command, or the Church Jesus was refering to.

Our long and inconclusive discussions here certainly are testimony to the fact that the Bible by itself cannot be the final authority by itself. We need an authority to teach us and guard teh Truth. Jesus knew this and gave us the Church, based on oral teachings which is Tradition. From this Oral Tradition, grew the Bible as we know it today. The ancient understandings of the Bible can be found in Catholic teachings in the Catechism, complete with references and footnotes. - and it is ALL “indicated in the Holy Scriptures”.

Peace
James

Protestants think and believe since the Bible was written later then everything is contained in the Bible therefore there is no need for any other knowledge. they took the Bible and run with it since in their minds the SS is just a book which anyone can read and understand it. that is what i understand of them.

**“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… **

 

[Good_Fella]

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.

Did you say a “monopoly” ? :coffeeread:

This could explain why Protestantism is a divided house in which the sheep keep scattering: the avoidance of a “monopolization” of the Word of God and of Truth. Yet I recall distinctly having read in John’s gospel that Jesus promised to send His One Apostolic Catholic Church the Spirit of truth - not the Spirit of free enterprise.

Come to think of it, the Reformation did coincide with the rise of lassaize-faire capitalism. Or was it a coincidence, I wonder? :coffeeread:

And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star which had fallen from heaven to the earth, and there was given to him the ‘key’ of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit, and there went up from the pit a smoke like that of a great furnace; and the sun was darkened, and the air, by reason of the smoke of the pit. { Revelation 9, 1-2 }
[cf. Rev. H.B. Kramer, ‘The Book of Destiny’, pp. 214-216: Tan]

“He who is not with me is against me; and he who does not gather with me scatters.”
{ Matthew 12, 30 }

I can see why Jesus commissioned his apostles to build His Church - not write a New Testament. Elevating Scripture above Tradition from whence it came can only lead to division. Our Lord sent the Paraclete so that the Church would be guided in all truth and be one in faith. Jesus never had a monopoly of the truth in mind, since there is no such thing with regard to the teaching authority of His bride, the Church. And the Spirit of truth is not present and active in a divided religious movement outside the Church. :coffeeread:

The Church is “one body, one Spirit, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all” ( Ephesians 4, 4-6).

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. { 1 Timothy 3, 15 }

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by 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.

To the first part of your post re: the “half dozen organizations” I can only assume that you are refering to the various “Catholic” Rites plus the Orthodox. This I will happily concede. They often do have a good claim to Apostolic origion. You will note that the title of this thread is the Bible is Catholic. Therefore avoiding the problem of the “rites” variations.

I believe however that none of these “rites”, or churches holds to a premise of Bible alone, or that the Bible has more authority than the Church. If I am wrong please correct me.

Peace
James

 

[jblake]

JRKH;:

This I will happily concede. They often do have a good claim to Apostolic origon. You will note that the title of this thread is the Bible is Catholic. Therefore avoiding the problem of the “rites” variations.

Some of those organizations are not part of either Catholic or Orthodox Christianity, but still have a valid claim to Apostolic Origin.

I believe however that none of these “rites”, or churches holds to a premise of Bible alone, or that the Bible has more authority than the Church.

The other half of my point was that not only do these organizations not have identical canons, but neither the union, nor intersection of the texts are canonical to any organization.
Consider carefully what that statement does to claims about the Bible being Catholic.

xan

jonathon

 

[JRKH]

Some of those organizations are not part of either Catholic or Orthodox Christianity, but still have a valid claim to Apostolic Origin.

For my information, would you care to name the ones who are neither Catholic or Orthodox?

The other half of my point was that not only do these organizations not have identical canons, but neither the union, nor intersection of the texts are canonical to any organization.
Consider carefully what that statement does to claims about the Bible being Catholic.
xan
jonathon

I shall.
Perhaps you could expound on this a bit. I would be interested in the variances you mention.

I hope others will equally consider what your post does to the the idea of Sola Scriptura, or the Authority of the Bible taking precedence over the authority of the established Church.

Peace
James

 

[Lilyflower]

For my information, would you care to name the ones who are neither Catholic or Orthodox?

I shall.
Perhaps you could expound on this a bit. I would be interested in the variances you mention.

I hope others will equally consider what your post does to the the idea of Sola Scriptura, or the Authority of the Bible taking precedence over the authority of the established Church.

Peace
James

Sola Scriptura is a paradox. If the Church is wrong then the Bible must be also since the Church gave the word the Bible.

Blessings and peace

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by jblake View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 oneorganization, results in a canon that has no organization claiming the result to be canonical.

xan

jonathon

So you are saying that all the texts deemed to be canonical by at least one organization, e.g. the C.C. (46 books of the old and 27 books of the new testament)—results in a canon that has no organization…

*How so?

…claiming the result to be canonical.

How can “no organization” claim anything?

Perhaps I am misinterpreting!
**Jesus passionately prayed for unity but sadly foresaw division. **The minuscule differences within the C.C. --and between the C.C. and the E.O.C. is nothing compared to division, dissension and disunity within the protestant churches, and that is due the man-made dogma of sola scriptura. That is a verifiable fact, not my opinion.

Some Non-catholic’s, insist that catholic’s blindly follow the authority of the pope or the magisterium, which of course is silly, yet deny their own blind allegiance to the authority of the bible alone (sola scriptura), which I too was an advocate of, as a former lutheran.

If the bible is self-interpretive, (according to the dogma of sola scriptura, a protestant contrivance
spearheaded by Martin Luther) and the bible should stand alone on its own authority, then why are there so many non-catholic churches in the world giving their interpretation of the bible? Isn’t that an authoritative role, supplanting the bible as the sole authority? If the bible is our sole authority for salvation, why doesn’t everyone have the same doctrinal perspective regarding “truth?” After all truth is not relative! Where in the bible does it claim “all sufficiency” in regard to salvation or where is it written in the bible that all authority governing faith and morals is found in the bible, and finally, where in the bible does Jesus Christ assign or affirm authority to the bible alone? Authority, in a religious context, comes from people not books, as can be attested in both the protestant churches and the C.C. According to the C.C. (the only church that can trace its episcopal lineage all the way back to the apostles, hence it connects directly back to the early Christian apostolic churches that formed during the New Testament times) and the bible (canonized and codified by the C.C.) —authority was passed on by Jesus, to the apostolic church.

The big question I had to ask myself, once I realized the insufficiency and shortcomings of sola scriptura (bible alone, private interpretation) and how it conflicted with the interpreting, teaching authority of the lutheran church, was —out of a bevy of churches in the world today, which one continues to be the apostolic church of the 1st century?

Does everyone in the U.S. have the right to interpret the U.S. Constitution on an individual bases, or is this authority implemented by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court? Can you imagine the anarchy that would ensue if the authority and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution was implemented on an individual bases as is the case in the protestant sphere, with the dogma of sola scriptura?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have enjoyed the many posts here in support that the Catholic church authoritatively, through her magesterium of Popes and Bishops canonized the books of the bible which included the old testament and new testament today.

I would wish to bring in a different perspective, that makes the bible catholic. For one; the early church fathers conducting the Eucharistic (Mass) breaking of bread sacrifice, were using the letters of the apostles and oral Tradition. As Time went on many other gospels and writings were being introduced into the Mass.

So the Catholic church first century, began to put together a list of approved books for the Mass celebrations. So the bible of today began to be put together for the sole purpose to be used in all the Mass celebrations through out the catholic church.Because the Mass included the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist as it does today these 2000 years.

My point is the bible is Catholic, because its inception was to use approved canonized books by the Catholic church in her Mass, and remove the unapproved books from the Mass. And the only living christian authority to take on such a divine task is the Roman Catholic church, and her magesterium. The only others that existed were heretics and excommunicated members who did not adhere to the Pope and the magesterium apostolic teachings handed down to them from the apostles of Jesus.

One more perspective to consider, for those outside of the one Holy Catholic Apostolic church. The Catholic church, is fully human and fully divine. When a prostestant mentions church, has a totally different meaning than when a Catholic mentions church. For to a Catholic; The Catholic church is the body of Jesus Christ. So it is from this biblical perspective and apostolic Tradition, that the Catholic church under the insperation of the Holy Spirit, excercised her God given authority to loose and or bind on earth, and Jesus will do the same in heaven, Authorized and canonized the books of the bible.

This is a matter of uncontested faith, because the Catholic church being the body of Jesus Christ on earth, has not failed in 2000 years of Jesus Teachings, this can only be achieved by the Divine one (Jesus) who is the Head of the Catholic church in heaven. Simply put, the body of Jesus Christ the Catholic church, cannot move without the Head which is Jesus Christ. That is why Iam convinced, not only by historical facts, but by Jesus himself, who has proved True to his word and promises, to never leave his Catholic (universal) church, which includes every people, past, present and future ages to come.

Peace to you all, and keep up the good commentaries they are great, and thank you.

 

[Protestant101]

I believe however that none of these “rites”, or churches holds to a premise of Bible alone, or that the Bible has more authority than the Church. If I am wrong please correct me.

All of the “Rites” are really just denominations or offshoots of the Catholic denomination. They are good proof that so called “Tradition” does not unite denominations. If the Bible really was “Catholic” then there would be more unity in their various folds. They are no better than Protestants on that score.

 

[Ronald_E]

All of the “Rites” are really just denominations or offshoots of the Catholic denomination. They are good proof that so called “Tradition” does not unite denominations. If the Bible really was “Catholic” then there would be more unity in their various folds. They are no better than Protestants on that score.

What do you know about the different rites?

 

[Protestant101]

The only others that existed were heretics and excommunicated members who did not adhere to the Pope…

Yikes! You said it not me!!

 

[Protestant101]

What do you know about the different rites?

Actually it should be what do YOU know if you are going to try and say they are all united!!

 

[JRKH]

All of the “Rites” are really just denominations or offshoots of the Catholic denomination. They are good proof that so called “Tradition” does not unite denominations. If the Bible really was “Catholic” then there would be more unity in their various folds. They are no better than Protestants on that score.

It is pre-mature to comment in general on this since I am waiting to hear back from jblake on which groups he is refering to and what their canon’s look like.
There have been claims made before along these lines that have proven to be false.

Peace
James

 

[Stephen_C]

Actually it should be what do YOU know if you are going to try and say they are all united!!

This is what makes us (all rites) Catholic.
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
United in all things! :grouphug:
We don’t have reinvent our Bible/Church each week. Or proof text, copy paste, etc… it to fit our view. Or the view of the week.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yikes! You said it not me!!

Hello Protestant101, you have finally given me a response, I thought you vowed to never engage me? Thanks for the tidbit here.

For clarification; when I mention adhere to the Pope and the magesterium of the Church, this thought does not take on flesh as the way you wrongly think it does, I respectfully mean to adhere to the authority that Jesus Christ himself placed here as shepherd of his flock, not the man, as you wrongly imply.

Secondly, I find you and others off track when discussing Rites, Church, bible authority, apostolic Tradition, which in my opinion you dont have a clue as to what the Catholic church means by Apostolic Tradition, it is not the same tradition of men to which your faith is based on. As one on the outside looking in here, you have an (opposing view) different new age of thought into these mysteries, where as the Catholic has an ancient unified understanding of the topics of Church = body of Jesus Christ, Tradition= teachings handed down from the apostles, Pope = The chair of Peter to which Jesus built his church etc.

To remain on topic, as I stated in my previous post, the Bible is Catholic, for the fact that it was put together for the liturgical Catholic Mass celebrations which proclaim the death of the Lord Jesus until he returns and sees us doing so.

When ever a non catholic reads a book of the bible, he/she is reading a liturgical book of the Catholic church, for it was this reason the books of the bible were put together, and canonized to be used as approved books for liturgical purposes, this list originates from the first century, and 400 years later, the list gets, approved by councils, and Popes from the first century on, and finally closed by the Church council, that makes the statement that all these books are approved for the liturgical Mass, and are to be accepted, anyone who does not accept these books let them be “anathema”.

Does your church has the authority to approve inspired books of the Word of God for the World to accept as inspired of God. If you accept the incomplete bible of King James, then you already accept the authority of the Pope and Magesterium, but not fully, so you remain anathema from the whole truth, for that bible of the King James only posseses, part of the whole truth.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

All of the “Rites” are really just denominations or offshoots of the Catholic denomination.

**What makes you think the Catholic church is a denomination? The Catholic church is the body of Jesus Christ, fully human because her members are human on earth, fully divine because Jesus is the head of his body the Catholic church.

Secondly the Catholic church is the fulfillment of the old covenant made present in Jesus Christ. For one the Catholic church is the only biblical body of believers that offer a living sacrifice in the mystical presence of the lambs body and blood to fulfill the covenant of God daily with thanksgiving, for the atonement of sins of those past present and that have not been born yet. The Catholic church is not a denomination, She is the bride of Jesus Christ. Now protestantism is a denomination from the Cathoilc church, those that have taken with them sacred sacraments, all others have denominated from protestantism.**

They are good proof that so called “Tradition” does not unite denominations. If the Bible really was “Catholic” then there would be more unity in their various folds. They are no better than Protestants on that score.

**Their is only one Apostolic Tradition that has united the (Universal) Catholic body of believers all around the world from every nation, tribe and tongue of peoples these 2000 years unchanged.

The denominations that have seperated themselves from the body of Jesus Christ, continues to divide among their own man founded religions on their own traditions to which you admittedly follow in your title.

The purpose of the Tradition of the Catholic church is not to unite a body of different beliefs, but to proclaim the gospel truth of Jesus, given to the Catholic church through letters of the apostles, and Oral Traditions of the Apostles.**

Peace be with you

 

[wisdomseeker]

:bowdown2:

All of the “Rites” are really just denominations or offshoots of the Catholic denomination. They are good proof that so called “Tradition” does not unite denominations. If the Bible really was “Catholic” then there would be more unity in their various folds. They are no better than Protestants on that score.

The thing is protestant can only argue about christianity going back to 450 years back.
1550 years before that they do not accept.
orthodox churches only accept arguments with the CC for the first1000 years of christianity.

to argue with protestants about the Church, we need perhaps go back to the basis. like what happened to the Church after the apostles were gone?
was the Church only here for the apostles after that no one else could be trusted with the Word of God?

now if CC says that the Eucharist is the True Body and Blood of Christ and protestants says it is not, then one of the two is lying, which is it?
if the HS is to lead into all Truth, who has the Truth?

I am saying this because the HS cannot tell one person one think and then tell another the opposite. can we agree on this?

which of one of us is lying? how can we determine?

i’ll leave at that for now.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

:bowdown2:

The thing is protestant can only argue about christianity going back to 450 years back.
1550 years before that they do not accept.
orthodox churches only accept arguments with the CC for the first1000 years of christianity.

to argue with protestants about the Church, we need perhaps go back to the basis. like what happened to the Church after the apostles were gone?
was the Church only here for the apostles after that no one else could be trusted with the Word of God?

now if CC says that the Eucharist is the True Body and Blood of Christ and protestants says it is not, then one of the two is lying, which is it?
if the HS is to lead into all Truth, who has the Truth?

I am saying this because the HS cannot tell one person one think and then tell another the opposite. can we agree on this?

which of one of us is lying? how can we determine?

i’ll leave at that for now.

There is only one Truth, all others come from the father of lies. It is not the purpose to seek out the liar, for we Catholics know who the Liar is already, the purpose of the Catholic church is to expose those who have been decieved from the father of lies, to the Gospel Truth of Jesus Christ, and call them all home. So to figure out who is lying, As far as I understand lying only has one source from the evil one who is a wolf in sheeps clothing seeking out the vulnerable lambs of God decieving them to follow the deceiver, this the True shepherd seeks these lost ones through his body the Catholic church.

Peace be with you

 

[wisdomseeker]

There is only one Truth, all others come from the father of lies. It is not the purpose to seek out the liar, for we Catholics know who the Liar is already, the purpose of the Catholic church is to expose those who have been decieved from the father of lies, to the Gospel Truth of Jesus Christ, and call them all home. So to figure out who is lying, As far as I understand lying only has one source from the evil one who is a wolf in sheeps clothing seeking out the vulnerable lambs of God decieving them to follow the deceiver, this the True shepherd seeks these lost ones through his body the Catholic church.

Peace be with you

Yes i understand that. i was hoping that protestants would jump on this one. tks