The Church or the Bible

[fcgv]

The Church or the Bible
by Fr. Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815-1890)

Introduction…

The following sermon is as relevant today as it was over 100 years ago when it was first preached by Father Arnold Damen, S.J. That Father Damen’s message was and still is a challenge to the many who pride themselves “Bible-and-Bible-alone Christians” is evident from the title, “The Church or the Bible.” “One cannot have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother,” and likewise one cannot have the Word of God for his faith who will not have the Church for his teacher. It is the infallible teaching authority of the Church, as promised by Christ, which alone preserves God’s Word from erroneous interpretation. This is the essence of the zealous priest’s doctrine. It is also the essence of true Christianity, as Father Damen amply proves from Scripture itself and from just plain common sense. Every sincere Bible reader deserves to know the true relation God has established between His Church and Holy Scripture. We, therefore, invite all who love the Bible to read Father Damen’s exposition with an open mind, lest while reading the Scriptures “they wrest them to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

sspxasia.com/Documents/Catholic_Sermons/The-Church-or-the-Bible.htm

 

[ckempston]

The Church or the Bible
by Fr. Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815-1890)

Introduction…

The following sermon is as relevant today as it was over 100 years ago when it was first preached by Father Arnold Damen, S.J. That Father Damen’s message was and still is a challenge to the many who pride themselves “Bible-and-Bible-alone Christians” is evident from the title, “The Church or the Bible.” “One cannot have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother,” and likewise one cannot have the Word of God for his faith who will not have the Church for his teacher. It is the infallible teaching authority of the Church, as promised by Christ, which alone preserves God’s Word from erroneous interpretation. This is the essence of the zealous priest’s doctrine. It is also the essence of true Christianity, as Father Damen amply proves from Scripture itself and from just plain common sense. Every sincere Bible reader deserves to know the true relation God has established between His Church and Holy Scripture. We, therefore, invite all who love the Bible to read Father Damen’s exposition with an open mind, lest while reading the Scriptures “they wrest them to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

sspxasia.com/Documents/Catholic_Sermons/The-Church-or-the-Bible.htm

You should have asked a harder question. This is a joke. First of all, Fr. Damen argues from a fallacy - that the church did not have the Bible for 65 years - this is at best disingenuous, at worst a blatant falsehood - because, as he claims, the last book was not completed until 65 years after the church was established. This is totally inconsistent with Catholic history itself. The Catholic church constantly claims that just because a thing is codified at a certain time, does not mean it wasn’t taught by the Apostles. Beliefs about the divinity of the Holy Spirit were clarified at the Council of Constantinople. Does this mean prior to this point that the Holy Spirit was not a member of the godhead? ABSURD! Yet this is the arugment Fr. Damen uses. Again, a total joke.

The fact of the matter is, the church had most of the Scriptures for all of its existence, and when it did not have the Scriptures, it had something better (which we do not have regardless of Catholic claims about their Pope): the Apostles. Similarly to how the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins on earth, and so was able to provide the exception for the thief on the cross not having been baptized, the Apostles had authority on earth to speak the Word of God. An exception doesn’t negate the rule, but it does demonstrate that while Christ, and the Apostles, were here on earth, there was a special dispensation period. Not only that, but the Miraculous Gifts such as prophecy and speaking in tongues would still have been in existence after the Apostles’ deaths. He then goes on to say that the church didn’t have the Bible for 300 years, another blatant falsehood. This guy is so disingenuous, you should be embarrassed to be quoting him. If Paul was all about the teaching authority of the church, why was he concerned about them reading one another’s letters and reading them publicly?

Colossians 4:16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

1 Thessalonians 5:27 I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.

The answer, of course, is that the written Word is the authority over any other man-based teaching authority on earth.

The idea of the high cost of copying Bibles is also a joke, as is the common claim of “not enough paper” etc., these have all been thoroughly refuted. It should be clear to anyone that he’s using shady math to reach the conclusion he does regarding the cost of a Bible.

Not only that, but comparing this to the Jews, one can see the blatant falsehood of his conclusions. The Bible need not be copied to make it available to the people. The Jewish scribes kept the scrolls, but they had no authority to change what they said, or keep what they said from the people, both of which the Catholic church has done.

Lastly, a couple notes from Church fathers. Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies 3:1:1:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

Why would he feel it important to point out that the Apostles first preached publicly and then handed down what they taught in the Scriptures to “be the ground and pillar of our faith”? Gee, that phrase sounds familiar. What else is the Catholic “magesterium” but a bunch of self-important, falsely pious men who fancy themselves “improvers of the Apostles”? The point Irenaeus makes is that the Apostles’ teachings need no improvement, but the Catholic church has continued to “improve” and add to the Apostles teachings since its beginning.

Jerome said that ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ. In fact, as can be clearly seen by anyone who reads the earliest writings of the early church, the so-called “oral” tradition is nothing more than Scriptures being quoted. The early church fathers say nothing without backing it up in Scriptures. The Catholic church on the other hand says much that is not in the scriptures, and then goes back to scripture and tries to twist it to support their preconceived notions.

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

while Christ, and the Apostles, were here on earth, there was a special dispensation period.

And where do we find that in the Bible? Can you point to an explicit mention of such in Scripture? Or are you one of those who says “much that is not in the scriptures, and then goes back to scripture and tries to twist it to support their preconceived notions.”

Not only that, but the Miraculous Gifts such as prophecy and speaking in tongues would still have been in existence after the Apostles’ deaths.

That doesn’t follow at all. Regardless, what proof have you that such things ended after the death of the last Apostle? But again, it didn’t follow logically.

He then goes on to say that the church didn’t have the Bible for 300 years, another blatant falsehood. This guy is so disingenuous, you should be embarrassed to be quoting him.

No, sorry, the Bible didn’t exist for some 300+ years after Christ. Yes, its component parts did, but it was not assembled into what we now call “the Bible” until the Catholic Church assembled it. (Much the same way that a pile of lumber, bricks, pipes, and carpet does not equal a house until it get put together.)

Before that time, there were many false Gospels, forged letters, and even pious writings (which, while pious, were simply not infallible) that people held to be divinely inspired. Some people were following the Gospel of Mary Magdalene as though it were a true Gospel; others considered the story of the Shepherd of Hermas to be of equal authority to the Apostles’ letters. There was no “Bible” as we know it today, because there was no definitive list of what was authentic God-breathed Scripture and what wasn’t.

Why do you not read the so-called Gospel of Thomas and follow its teachings as you do the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John?

If Paul was all about the teaching authority of the church, why was he concerned about them reading one another’s letters and reading them publicly?
…]
The answer, of course, is that the written Word is the authority over any other man-based teaching authority on earth.

That is, of course, not the answer at all. Paul was a bishop of the Church, an episkopos, “overseer.” He had authority to guide and govern the Church, and so he wanted his instructions to be read to all those who needed to hear them. This is a much easier way to do it than to travel to each individual church himself and deliver the message in person. Not only was this rather impractical and inefficient, but was downright impossible on several occasions, and Paul himself admits in his letters. Yet again you are reading your own preconceived notions into Scripture. Unless you have some Biblical passages to support this?

The idea of the high cost of copying Bibles is also a joke, as is the common claim of “not enough paper” etc., these have all been thoroughly refuted. It should be clear to anyone that he’s using shady math to reach the conclusion he does regarding the cost of a Bible.

Employing a scribe to copy a book did, in fact, cost money. And to copy a book as large as the Bible would take quite a good deal of time and effort, even if materials like paper and ink were of no consequence (which they weren’t, even price-wise). Hiring a man to pen your own personal copy a book would cost money, because that man expected to be paid.

My modern, small-print typed copy has almost 1,400 pages from Genesis to Revelation. Any allowances for notes and introductions, etc., that we wouldn’t include in a written copy is probably made up for by there being a lot more text per page today than a medieval monk could write. Anyway, for a man to write out 1,400 pages would take a lot of time, and therefore cost a good deal of money. Even if it didn’t take 20 years, even if it only took, say 2 or 3, that’s still quite a bit of money. I don’t have $600 in 2010 dollars to spend on a book, unless I want my wife and I to get kicked out of our apartment, or not eat for months. Again, do you have something to prove the cost of copying books, along with the average wage of a medieval peasant?

Not only that, but comparing this to the Jews, one can see the blatant falsehood of his conclusions. The Bible need not be copied to make it available to the people. The Jewish scribes kept the scrolls, but they had no authority to change what they said, or keep what they said from the people, both of which the Catholic church has done.

True, the Bible needn’t be publicly available such that every man has his own personal copy. But even if everyone has free access (and literacy) to read the Bible, there still must be some infallible interpreter, or we end up with 350 contradictory opinions, just like Father Damen said (although current estimates put that number in the thousands, these days).

It actually reminds me quite a bit of Jesus and the Pharisees, how the scribes gave their opinions about what Scripture meant, but Christ spoke with authority.

The second, underlined, portion is just a blatant lie. Unless you have some sort of proof to back it up?

[continued…]

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

[Part 2, thanks character limit per post…]

What else is the Catholic “magesterium” but a bunch of self-important, falsely pious men who fancy themselves “improvers of the Apostles”? The point Irenaeus makes is that the Apostles’ teachings need no improvement, but the Catholic church has continued to “improve” and add to the Apostles teachings since its beginning.

The Church has never claimed to “improve” upon the Apostles’ teachings; it merely keeps them and guards them in their fullness. But you’re taking the quote out of context. With a bit more context:
“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed ‘perfect knowledge,’ as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge,”
we can see that Irenaeus is stressing that the Apostles only began to preach after the Holy Spirit had endowed them with power. The men against whom he speaks seem to be trying to improve the Apostles in terms of the Apostles’ character and power and authority, not trying to somehow outdo Peter and Paul.

Jerome said that ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ. In fact, as can be clearly seen by anyone who reads the earliest writings of the early church, the so-called “oral” tradition is nothing more than Scriptures being quoted. The early church fathers say nothing without backing it up in Scriptures.

Like quoting Matthew 16:18 to prove the special authority of Peter’s successor (e.g. Cyprian, Tertullian, Augustine, most every pope after Peter)?

But in reality, it’s not true that Tradition is just in quoting the Scriptures. Much of it has to do with talking about the practices that were going on in the early Church (prayers for the dead, confession to priests, baptism by other than full body immersion, etc.) that those only one or two generations removed from the Apostles note, without objection, had been going on.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[wisdomseeker]

You should have asked a harder question. This is a joke. First of all, Fr. Damen argues from a fallacy - that the church did not have the Bible for 65 years - this is at best disingenuous, at worst a blatant falsehood - because, as he claims, the last book was not completed until 65 years after the church was established. This is totally inconsistent with Catholic history itself. The Catholic church constantly claims that just because a thing is codified at a certain time, does not mean it wasn’t taught by the Apostles. Beliefs about the divinity of the Holy Spirit were clarified at the Council of Constantinople. Does this mean prior to this point that the Holy Spirit was not a member of the godhead? ABSURD! Yet this is the arugment Fr. Damen uses. Again, a total joke.

The fact of the matter is, the church had most of the Scriptures for all of its existence, and when it did not have the Scriptures, it had something better (which we do not have regardless of Catholic claims about their Pope): the Apostles. Similarly to how the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins on earth, and so was able to provide the exception for the thief on the cross not having been baptized, the Apostles had authority on earth to speak the Word of God. An exception doesn’t negate the rule, but it does demonstrate that while Christ, and the Apostles, were here on earth, there was a special dispensation period. Not only that, but the Miraculous Gifts such as prophecy and speaking in tongues would still have been in existence after the Apostles’ deaths. He then goes on to say that the church didn’t have the Bible for 300 years, another blatant falsehood. This guy is so disingenuous, you should be embarrassed to be quoting him. If Paul was all about the teaching authority of the church, why was he concerned about them reading one another’s letters and reading them publicly?

Colossians 4:16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

1 Thessalonians 5:27 I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.

The answer, of course, is that the written Word is the authority over any other man-based teaching authority on earth.

The idea of the high cost of copying Bibles is also a joke, as is the common claim of “not enough paper” etc., these have all been thoroughly refuted. It should be clear to anyone that he’s using shady math to reach the conclusion he does regarding the cost of a Bible.

Not only that, but comparing this to the Jews, one can see the blatant falsehood of his conclusions. The Bible need not be copied to make it available to the people. The Jewish scribes kept the scrolls, but they had no authority to change what they said, or keep what they said from the people, both of which the Catholic church has done.

Lastly, a couple notes from Church fathers. Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies 3:1:1:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

Why would he feel it important to point out that the Apostles first preached publicly and then handed down what they taught in the Scriptures to “be the ground and pillar of our faith”? Gee, that phrase sounds familiar. What else is the Catholic “magesterium” but a bunch of self-important, falsely pious men who fancy themselves “improvers of the Apostles”? The point Irenaeus makes is that the Apostles’ teachings need no improvement, but the Catholic church has continued to “improve” and add to the Apostles teachings since its beginning.

Jerome said that ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ. In fact, as can be clearly seen by anyone who reads the earliest writings of the early church, the so-called “oral” tradition is nothing more than Scriptures being quoted. The early church fathers say nothing without backing it up in Scriptures. The Catholic church on the other hand says much that is not in the scriptures, and then goes back to scripture and tries to twist it to support their preconceived notions.

First, you should not be talking about a priest like that, with total disrespect.

you quote St Iraneus, he was a Catholic, obviously he is speaking against heretics who were outside the Church preaching without authority.

ST Jerome’s quote is always misenterpreted by protestants. St Jerome is basicaly talking about the understanding of Scriptures. people did not have Bibles, they heard the Word through the CC.

all the Fathers of the Church are Catholics. they were not baptists, presbyterians, anglicans, assemblies of God, LDS, lutherans. in fact if you read the Fathers of the Church, you will realize that they called all those outside the CC heretics.

St. Irenaeus in France, writing in the second century;
“As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith from the Apostles, although scattered throughout the world, yet as if occupying one house, carefully preserves it.” "For the churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor do those in Gaul, nor do those in the East, nor do those in Egypt, nor do those in Libya, nor do those which have been established in the central regions of the world."

 

[wisdomseeker]

You should have asked a harder question. This is a joke. First of all, Fr. Damen argues from a fallacy - that the church did not have the Bible for 65 years - this is at best disingenuous, at worst a blatant falsehood - because, as he claims, the last book was not completed until 65 years after the church was established. This is totally inconsistent with Catholic history itself. The Catholic church constantly claims that just because a thing is codified at a certain time, does not mean it wasn’t taught by the Apostles. Beliefs about the divinity of the Holy Spirit were clarified at the Council of Constantinople. Does this mean prior to this point that the Holy Spirit was not a member of the godhead? ABSURD! Yet this is the arugment Fr. Damen uses. Again, a total joke.

The fact of the matter is, the church had most of the Scriptures for all of its existence, and when it did not have the Scriptures, it had something better (which we do not have regardless of Catholic claims about their Pope): the Apostles. Similarly to how the Son of Man had authority to forgive sins on earth, and so was able to provide the exception for the thief on the cross not having been baptized, the Apostles had authority on earth to speak the Word of God. An exception doesn’t negate the rule, but it does demonstrate that while Christ, and the Apostles, were here on earth, there was a special dispensation period. Not only that, but the Miraculous Gifts such as prophecy and speaking in tongues would still have been in existence after the Apostles’ deaths. He then goes on to say that the church didn’t have the Bible for 300 years, another blatant falsehood. This guy is so disingenuous, you should be embarrassed to be quoting him. If Paul was all about the teaching authority of the church, why was he concerned about them reading one another’s letters and reading them publicly?

Colossians 4:16 After this letter has been read to you, see that it is also read in the church of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

1 Thessalonians 5:27 I charge you before the Lord to have this letter read to all the brothers.

The answer, of course, is that the written Word is the authority over any other man-based teaching authority on earth.

The idea of the high cost of copying Bibles is also a joke, as is the common claim of “not enough paper” etc., these have all been thoroughly refuted. It should be clear to anyone that he’s using shady math to reach the conclusion he does regarding the cost of a Bible.

Not only that, but comparing this to the Jews, one can see the blatant falsehood of his conclusions. The Bible need not be copied to make it available to the people. The Jewish scribes kept the scrolls, but they had no authority to change what they said, or keep what they said from the people, both of which the Catholic church has done.

Lastly, a couple notes from Church fathers. Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies 3:1:1:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

Why would he feel it important to point out that the Apostles first preached publicly and then handed down what they taught in the Scriptures to “be the ground and pillar of our faith”? Gee, that phrase sounds familiar. What else is the Catholic “magesterium” but a bunch of self-important, falsely pious men who fancy themselves “improvers of the Apostles”? The point Irenaeus makes is that the Apostles’ teachings need no improvement, but the Catholic church has continued to “improve” and add to the Apostles teachings since its beginning.

Jerome said that ignorance of the scriptures is ignorance of Christ. In fact, as can be clearly seen by anyone who reads the earliest writings of the early church, the so-called “oral” tradition is nothing more than Scriptures being quoted. The early church fathers say nothing without backing it up in Scriptures. The Catholic church on the other hand says much that is not in the scriptures, and then goes back to scripture and tries to twist it to support their preconceived notions.

you use the Bible against the Church and use the Fathers who were all Catholics against the Church also? talking about ignorance of Scriptures.

G. K. Chesterton
“All the empires and kingdoms have failed because of this inherent and continual weakness - that they were founded by strong men.”
But this one thing the historic Christian Church was founded on a weak man, Peter, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link. No, not for that reason alone, but because the weak man now has acknowledged Christ and because Christ makes him strong.