The Bible is Catholic -

[Linda_Marie]

It doesn’t say that “the Bible is not clear;” it only says that Jesus “opened their understanding” just as He does today, through His Spirit.

It is a good thing that this is so; for the Holy Spirit is infallible; but the Pope is…

If they needed their understanding opened, obviously, it was not clear. They had heard these Scriptures all their lives and had never understood them before.

The Holy Spirit opened the understanding of the Apostles, and they, and their successors preserved that understanding as Tradition. After speaking with the crowds, Jesus frequently had to explain what He had been talking about to the Apostles. He explained until they understood, until they knew. This is what Tradition is. It is the teachings of Jesus that were not written in Scripture.

Matthew was presumably literate, being a tax collector. Why didn’t Jesus tell him to record things? For that matter, why didn’t He call a scribe and make sure all of His Teachings were written down, if He wanted us to follow a book only?

Had He wanted us to have a book as the sole guide for our faith, He would have made sure that His Teachings were completely recorded. Before His Ascension, He would have told the Apostles, “Here is My Book. This is the Supreme Authority.” He didn’t. He breathed on His Apostles and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”, giving his Apostles, with Peter at their head, all Authority in His Name.

The only reason anyone places any faith in this book at all is because the Church declared these particular writings to be Divinely Inspired. How can someone believe that the Holy Spirit was with the Church when she determined the canon of the Bible but abandoned her immediately afterwards? This would make Scripture a lie when it says that the Holy Spirit will be with His Church until the end of time.

One of the tests to determine if the writings were Scripture was to compare them to Sacred Tradition and remove all those which contained things which directly conflicted with Sacred Oral Tradition. There was no Bible to consult to determine this.

The test is the same for us today with any inspirations or private revelations we receive. Does my interpretation, or what I hear go against what has been taught or is it in accord? If it is not in accord and I think it says something which contradicts what the Church teaches, then my understanding must be in error, not the Church. The Church does not teach Her own doctrine but only that which was given Her by God, which she has protected with the blood of Her martyrs.

We all know that the 3-legged stool can give a stable seat on any surface. The Church’s authority is upheld on the 3-legged tripod of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. Without any one of these legs, the foundation is unstable.

P101, why do you think that the Holy Spirit protects you in your interpretation but does not protect the Pope or any other Catholics? Why are you the only person vouchsafed the Truth?

 

[joe370]

If they needed their understanding opened, obviously, it was not clear. They had heard these Scriptures all their lives and had never understood them before.

The Holy Spirit opened the understanding of the Apostles, and they, and their successors preserved that understanding as Tradition. After speaking with the crowds, Jesus frequently had to explain what He had been talking about to the Apostles. He explained until they understood, until they knew. This is what Tradition is. It is the teachings of Jesus that were not written in Scripture.

Matthew was presumably literate, being a tax collector. Why didn’t Jesus tell him to record things? For that matter, why didn’t He call a scribe and make sure all of His Teachings were written down, if He wanted us to follow a book only?

Had He wanted us to have a book as the sole guide for our faith, He would have made sure that His Teachings were completely recorded. Before His Ascension, He would have told the Apostles, “Here is My Book. This is the Supreme Authority.” He didn’t. He breathed on His Apostles and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit”, giving his Apostles, with Peter at their head, all Authority in His Name.

The only reason anyone places any faith in this book at all is because the Church declared these particular writings to be Divinely Inspired. How can someone believe that the Holy Spirit was with the Church when she determined the canon of the Bible but abandoned her immediately afterwards? This would make Scripture a lie when it says that the Holy Spirit will be with His Church until the end of time.

One of the tests to determine if the writings were Scripture was to compare them to Sacred Tradition and remove all those which contained things which directly conflicted with Sacred Oral Tradition. There was no Bible to consult to determine this.

The test is the same for us today with any inspirations or private revelations we receive. Does my interpretation, or what I hear go against what has been taught or is it in accord? If it is not in accord and I think it says something which contradicts what the Church teaches, then my understanding must be in error, not the Church. The Church does not teach Her own doctrine but only that which was given Her by God, which she has protected with the blood of Her martyrs.

We all know that the 3-legged stool can give a stable seat on any surface. The Church’s authority is upheld on the 3-legged tripod of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. Without any one of these legs, the foundation is unstable.

P101, why do you think that the Holy Spirit protects you in your interpretation but does not protect the Pope or any other Catholics? Why are you the only person vouchsafed the Truth?

Well said, and very persuasive! The Church, not the Bible, is the the yardstick by which all things, regarding faith and morals are measured, which included the Dogmatic teachings of the 46 books of the O.T., the 27 books of the N.T. canonized and codified by the C.C. at the the end of the 4th century, out of necessity, and the doctrinal teachings, e.g. the Trinity, again implemented by the C.C. at the various councils through the centuries, usually in response to heretical movements, e.g. marcionism!

The marcionites were one of many heretical sects through the centuries, founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire. They rejected the writings of the Old Testament and taught that Christ was not the Son of the God of the Jews, but the Son of the good God, who was different from the God of the Ancient Covenant. They anticipated the more consistent dualism of Manichaeism and were finally absorbed by it. As they arose in the very infancy of Christianity and adopted from the beginning a strong ecclesiastical organization, parallel to that of the Catholic Church, they were perhaps the most dangerous foe Christianity has ever known.

 

[joe370]

**

“According to the Bible” is just a meaningless ruse when it’s texts are twisted to the Catholic denominations dogmas like this.

Which catholic dogmas are you referring to, and what texts am I twisting? The C.C. was/is never referred to as a denomination. We have the C.C. the E.O.C. and then the Protestant churches/denominations, and there will be more denominations popping up in the future.

The C.C. came into existence long before any denomination was ever even thought of. However, if you insist on calling it a denomination then so be it, even though they were flying solo; no competing denominations per se; just heretical movements which were always quashed. The C.C. is 100 percent of Divine origin and design. Ephesians 3:9-11 — *“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:” *

Could anyone today successfully claim that the modern monstrosity known as “denominationalism” is a product of the omnipotent Mind of God?

The word “denomination” came onto the religious scene in the 16th century out of necessity after various reformers with their different names, creeds, doctrines and headquarters began to emerge, all of which claimed to belong to Christ. While on earth, Jesus instructed his disciples to form one unified church, and for that church to spread His word. What happened to Christ’s singular, united church?
With Protestant denominations numbering in the tens of thousands, how can Christians know for certain which church Jesus intended for them? And how can the Catholic Church insist that it is the one true Christian Church? Isn’t that a little… well… presumptuous? NOPE…

Jesus Institutes the Christian Church

Rewind 2,000 years to when Jesus turned to his apostle Peter and said, “And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it.” (Matthew 16:18) Jesus instructed Peter and the other apostles to build a church, one church, His church. They obeyed, and that worldwide and unified church exists to this day.

Is the Catholic Church the One True Church?

So which church did Jesus establish? Historians confirm that the Catholic Church was the first Christian church; the very church initiated by Christ himself. Saint Augustine named this Church “Catholic” which means “united” in order to set it apart from the heretical sects that were beginning to call themselves churches. Jesus required that his church be unified, and for about 1,600 years it was.

The Protestants

Enter Martin Luther, a brilliant but unstable lawyer-scholar-monk who wanted to create reform within the church. His direct challenge of the Church led protestors to not only question and oppose Christ’s only church but to completely desert it and create their own churches. These protestors, called “Protestants” divided the unity that Christ ordered and they continue to divide into multiple denominations to this day.

Why Isn’t Division Okay?

Remember, Jesus stipulated that his church be unified: “There will be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16) Jesus even prayed that God would assist in keeping unity within His church: “…Holy father! Keep them safe by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one just as you and I are one.” (John 17:11 ) Jesus required that the church be one singular body of believers. The early church fathers obeyed His word and worked to maintain unity, as evidenced by this statement in a letter from St. Paul to the Christian church in Rome: “I urge you, my friends to watch out for those who cause divisions and upset people’s faith and go against the teaching which you have received. Keep away from them!” (Romans 16:17). He also cautioned the church in Corinth: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ I appeal to all of you, my friends, to agree in what you say, so that there will be no divisions among you.” (1 Corinthians1:10)

The Marks of the One True
Church

According to the Bible, Christ’s church can be identified this way:
#1. Everyone is welcome. “So there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles, between slaves and free people, between men and women; you are all one in union with Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
#2 Everyone is equal. “But if you treat people according to their outward appearance, you are guilty of sin…” (James 2:9).**

 

[joe370]

#3 Children are treasured. “Jesus said, 'Let the children come to me and do not stop them, because the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14) In His church, children are loved and respected.
#4. The Church is out of this world. Christ’s kingdom was, and is, “not of this world” (John 18:36) so His Church is not loyal to any political groups or agendas; she is loyal only to Christ.
Where can the one true church be found? History, tradition, and even the Bible itself all point to the one, universal, and Catholic Church.

Can you please explain, for eg., where/how 1 Cor.12:28 tells us that any of the individuals mentioned has “everything necessary for our salvation?”

No individual(s) has "everything necessary for our salvation. The the magestarium, coupled with both Sacred Tradion + Sacred Scripture (the Bible) = the C.C.'s Deposit of Faith, and that is where salvation can be found.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life…” and HE (“THE TRUTH”) can be found in "the House of God,” which is the Church of the living God. (The bible says that Jesus can be found in His Fathers House) —The Church (not the bible) is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth; It is where we go for moral and spiritual enlightenment, to be close to the Trinity, and the sacraments; The Church is Jesus’ Mystical Body and He is head over all things.

Salvation can be found in the “body” of Christ which is His Church and salvation can be found in the House of God, which is the Church of the living God, and this Church is the Catholic apostolic Church.

“And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” Eph. 1:22-23

1 Col.
*"The human body has many parts, but the many parts make up one whole body. So it is with the body of Christ… we have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit…Yes, there are many parts, but only one body…All of you together are Christ’s body, and each of you is a part of it… Here are some of the parts God has appointed for the church:

first are apostles,
second are prophets,
third are teachers,
then those who do miracles,
those who have the gift of healing,
those who can help others,
those who have the gift of leadership,
those who speak in unknown languages." NLV

These men are just a few of the many parts that make up Jesus’ one whole body, which is the one church.We have all been baptized into one body by one Spirit, and we all share the same Spirit. There are many parts, but only one body, one Church… All of you together are Christ’s body, and each of you is a part of it.

The apostles prophets and teachers etc.etc. are all part of Jesus’ Mystical “Body”which is the Church. All those who choose to follow in their footsteps by going to the Church of the Living God **will find everything necessary for their salvation **

“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 Tim. 3:15

“And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.” 1Co 12:28*

 

[Protestant101]

If they needed their understanding opened, obviously, it was not clear. They had heard these Scriptures all their lives and had never understood them before.

Unfortunately, the rest of your post is meaningless. How can we sit back on our righteous haunches and say the problem was the Bible not being clear? The problem has always been, and will always be the people, and their understanding. But there’s nothing wrong with God’s Word, the Bible is quite clear. To say otherwise, only proves my one point here that Catholics are taught to denigrate the authority of the Bible.

 

[Protestant101]

#3 Children are treasured. “Jesus said, 'Let the children come to me and do not stop them, because the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14) In His church, children are loved and respected.
#4. The Church is out of this world. Christ’s kingdom was, and is, “not of this world” (John 18:36) so His Church is not loyal to any political groups or agendas; she is loyal only to Christ.

Joe; this kind of stuff proves nothing about the Bible being Catholic.

 

[Good_Fella]

Unfortunately, the rest of your post is meaningless. How can we sit back on our righteous haunches and say the problem was the Bible not being clear? The problem has always been, and will always be the people, and their understanding. But there’s nothing wrong with God’s Word, the Bible is quite clear. To say otherwise, only proves my one point here that Catholics are taught to denigrate the authority of the Bible.

If the Bible, notably the New Testament is “quite clear”, then how would you explain the fragmentation of Protestantism? You’ve already answered the question: the problem lies with private individuals like Luther and Calvin who each presume they have clearly understood the true meaning of biblical texts apart from the traditional and authoritative teachings of the One Apostolic Catholic Church. Ironically, the Protestant reformers rejected the notion of an infallible Magisterium and maintained that essential Church doctrines are non-infallible and revocable. But if that’s the case, we could never know with any genuine certainty whether we have reached a full understanding of a Divine truth by appealing to Scripture when our beliefs are put to the test. Since the Bible is unclear in many passages, it must be interpreted by a single and divinely appointed teaching authority. Christ conferred and transferred this authority on his apostles and through them on their valid successors for the sake of an explicit revelation of divine truth and unity of faith in the Church. Since Protestants have rejected Tradition and Magisterium and appeal strictly to the written Word outside the Church, conflict and division among countless denominations must inevitably be the result. Listen to Paul:The “Church”, not the Bible, is “the pillar and foundation of the truth”.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[JRKH]

Fellow Posters,
I have reached the conclusion that Protestant101 has definately exhausted all valid arguments for his position yet chooses to remain in obstinate, prideful ignorance. He has abandoned any pretense of discussion and open minded debate for two simple but oft repeated phrases. They are:

1. Any proof posted by us is brushed aside by saying “That Proves nothing”.
2. The Repeated Accusation that Catholics are Taught to deneigrate the Bble which he knows is false.

Fellow posters we have, in all charity, answered every one Protestant101’s questions. He refuses to accept them. It’s time to stop debating with someone who simply refuses the Truth, refuses to open his eyes and refuses to Obey Christ.

For myself I feel we have planted sufficient seeds. Hopefully in the time ahead, these seeds will begin to grow and P101 will abandon his obstanancy and embrace the light.

Peace
James

 

[joe370]

Joe; this kind of stuff proves nothing about the Bible being Catholic.

You win!!! the bible is a product of the Seventh-day Adventists church —and sola scriptura, and sola fida were taught by Jesus Christ to His Apostles !!!

Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence ----I’ll pray for you!!!

You gave me nothing, to prove that the bible isn’t CATHOLIC.

 

[Ronald_E]

If P101 did not get anything out of this discussion that would enlighten him then I am sad for his loss. I am certainly happy for my gain as I read each post that was written in such an intelligent and inspired love for the truth of Christ’s Church, which is Catholic. God Bless all of you for the beautiful expression of your love for the truth.
Ron

 

[Mimi]

Wow, over 40 pages on this thread! I only got to read 3.

I am a beginning amateur apologist and have started a discussion with an ex-Catholic (now Fundamentalist) who says that Transubstantiation isn’t in Acts (not what they meant by the Breaking of the Bread), so we Catholics are idolaters.

It really goes back to Authority, and who Jesus gave that Authority to, to carry on after His ascension. Clearly, that was to his ordained ministers, the apostles, and the Church Jesus established which has become known (through necessity) as the Catholic Church. Their successors eventually decided which writings were to be included in the Holy Canon of Scripture we know today as the Bible. So, it just stands to reason (if one accepts the historical record) that all Christians who regard the Bible as the authority for their faith, also recognize the Authority of the Church in creating and safeguarding that Scripture.

I have learned a lot from the Catholic responses here, which are very charitable and extremely knowledgable as well.

Thanks for helping me learn to defend the Faith!

God bless,
Mimi

 

[JRKH]

I’m Glad that others have gotten a lot out of this discussion.
I know I certainly have.


As for our old friend P101, I can only hope any seeds we planted will not be choked out, but grow and bear fruit someday.

Peace
James

 

[mercygate]

Wow, over 40 pages on this thread! I only got to read 3.

I am a beginning amateur apologist and have started a discussion with an ex-Catholic (now Fundamentalist) who says that Transubstantiation isn’t in Acts (not what they meant by the Breaking of the Bread), so we Catholics are idolaters.

It really goes back to Authority, and who Jesus gave that Authority to, to carry on after His ascension. Clearly, that was to his ordained ministers, the apostles, and the Church Jesus established which has become known (through necessity) as the Catholic Church. Their successors eventually decided which writings were to be included in the Holy Canon of Scripture we know today as the Bible. So, it just stands to reason (if one accepts the historical record) that all Christians who regard the Bible as the authority for their faith, also recognize the Authority of the Church in creating and safeguarding that Scripture.

I have learned a lot from the Catholic responses here, which are very charitable and extremely knowledgable as well.

Thanks for helping me learn to defend the Faith!

God bless,
Mimi

Agree with your friend. “Transubstantiation” is not in Acts (what a delirious allegation anyway). “Real Presence” is the issue in the early Church. IS JESUS PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST? Answer that with early writings available in CA Library. Then delineate how transubstantiation is a clarification of the NATURE of the Real Presence. Acknowledge that this does nothing to pin down HOW it happens other than through the Mystery of Christ’s own word.

 

[Good_Fella]

Hmm; why would you even be a Christian; if your were so unsure of God’s Word? When I sit down to read God’s Word, or to listen to it in my MP3 player; it never once comes across as “fallible.” I have found the Word of God to be the Voice of God to my soul. The inspiration and infallibility of Scripture is proven within it’s own text.

What is fallible is the private interpretation of Scripture on the part of individuals. To be inerrant, with regard to essential doctrines, Scripture must be interpreted in light of Tradition by the Sacred and Universal Magisterium of the Church; Scripture is infallible insofar as Tradition is infallible. Infallible Scripture arose from an infallible apostolic Tradition. Scripture cannot be infallible unless Tradition is infallible. Keep in mind that the Apostolic Church interpreted Isaiah 7,14 in light of her traditional beliefs about the Messiah and her awareness of the virgin birth. (cf. Mt 1, 25).

In his prologue to Theophilus, Luke tells him that he acknowledges the traditional teachings of the Church and is putting them down in writing to confirm them ( Lk 1, 1-4). These teachings are expressed either explicitly or implicitly in literary form. Since much material in Scripture is unclear, it must be interpreted publicly by the apostolic teaching authority of the One visible Church. Scripture is formally insufficient, and so it cannot be infallible while standing on its own in the possession of private individuals like Arius or Luther. The sufficient material in the biblical texts must be interpreted in light of Tradition by the apostolic teaching authority appointed and commissioned by Christ.

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more than the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, inharmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the pit of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines; and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.” [Scripture and Tradition]
Irenaeus ( A.D. 180 )

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[abucs]

Is it not a fact that it was the best part of 4 centuries after Jesus Christs incarnation that it was decided to put together a bible ?

Is it not a fact that it was the catholic church who decided that and then defined what was in it ?

To me, following the bible while at the same time denying its connection to the catholic church is like following the American constitution and declaration of independence and denying it has any connection with Americans.

In order to understand the declaration and resulting constitution you have to understand the context of why it was produced, by whom, their experiences and their reasons for writing and drafting and implementing it. And Americans are the best ones to have the perspective on that.

Of course you can follow the American declaration and constitution in Fiji but you are going to understand it from your own perspective and tailor it to fit your own needs.

To me, this is Protestantism in all its differrent adapted forms. With something as important as Jesus’ incarnation here on earth, better to go back to the source which is not the declaration and constitution but the ones who wrote it and put it together and what they were hoping to acheive by it and what was there underlying cultural viewpoint.

That is the best way to get a more complete picture instead of our own personal adaptations of our time, or of others of the 16th, 17th, 18th or 19th centuries etc etc.

Because if you go down the other road you don’t get one bible, you start to get many, many bibles, just as you would get many, many different constitutions that end up looking nothing like the original.

 

[Linda_Marie]

Protestant101,

I pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten your mind, soften your heart, bring you out of the darkness which now enfolds you so tightly. May you not be lost but have eternal life.

I ask this in the Name of Jesus, Christ.

Amen

For Protestant 101:
Holy Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle.
Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do you, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.

 

[RobHom]

I think it would be of great benefit for the Protestants and other non-Catholics who visit this site to go to this site and read the entire article. Especially those who have a problem with the Bible being “Catholic” in origin. It is not a “Catholic” or more specifically it is not a “Roman Catholic” site… goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7068.asp

Our Brothers and Sisters of the Eastern Rite are exempt in this, as it is an article that appears on the site of Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America site.

I found the article most interesting. I even learned a few things. I think others could learn a few things as well…some may even have a little bit of an “epiphany”.

If you are “faint of heart” or afraid of the truth…do not click on the link and read the article!

 

[Protestant101]

Protestant101,

I pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten your mind, soften your heart, bring you out of the darkness which now enfolds you so tightly. May you not be lost but have eternal life.

I ask this in the Name of Jesus, Christ.

Amen

For Protestant 101:
Holy Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle.
Be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray; and do you, O Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.

Thankyou for the prayer - I sincerely appreciate it. Do you know the Prayer Of St. Francis? I have it on a bookmark in my Bible. It is really a masterpiece.

 

[Ronald_E]

Thankyou for the prayer - I sincerely appreciate it. Do you know the Prayer Of St. Francis? I have it on a bookmark in my Bible. It is really a masterpiece.

Protestant101, I want to thank you for your contributions to this thread and the stimulation you provided to make this such a beautiful exploration of the faith that we all love so much.

I love the St. Francis prayer also…“And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.”
God Bless.

 

[joe370]

Joe; this kind of stuff proves nothing about the Bible being Catholic.

When you say the bible isn’t catholic, do you mean to say that the bible is not a product of the C.C.? —and that they had nothing to do with the canonization or codification of Sacred Scripture?

If the bible is not Catholic, what is it!