The Church's teachings are Scriptural

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eileen_T
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eileen_T

Guest
I have been responding to some PMs from “evangelist” and decided to take the topic to the Forum. I responded to “evangelist” as follows:

There are scriptural arguments for everything the Church teaches: the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist - that it is the actual Body and Blood of Christ, on the Papacy, on Purgatory, on the various Marian dogmas and Apostolic succession. These are not man-made ‘traditions’ which the Church invented at some point in history.

After all, the Bible, which is part of our Catholic heritage, uses the word “Tradition” in a positive sense in II Thessalonians 2:14, where Saint Paul urges them to hold fast to all the Traditions, whether they came by word of mouth or by letter, and when he praises the Corinthians in I Corinthians 11:1, or the Thessalonians in II Thessalonians 3:6, for holding fast to Tradition.

So the Bible itself testifies that what Jesus and the Apostles taught was handed down in two ways - in a written way in the Bible, and in an oral way. Both of these ways, in fact, are Tradition.
 
Eileen T

You are exactly right. The Catholic Church teaches what the Church has always taught for the last 2000 years. The real man- made tradition is Bible Only/Sola Scriptura and all the bad doctrines that developed from the unbiblical approach. You can take 10 Protestant preachers and they will often give you 10 totally different teachings about Baptism or any other doctrine of the Faith. The one thing I love about our Church is that She is deaply rooted into 2000 years of Church history and Apostolic Tradition. The difference between us Catholics and our Protestant brothers and sisters is that we understand that along with God’s Word the Bible, which we believe is infallible and inspired, is that we also have an infallible and inspired teaching of that Bible, unlike most Protestants that believe that the Bible is the complete authority to their faith. But my question to a Protestant is this. If the Bible is the complete authority to your faith, and if there is no authority outside of the Bible, then who had the authority to determine what books were to be in the Bible? We know that it was the Catholic Church. And we know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc etc were Catholics!
 
I have been responding to some PMs from “evangelist” and decided to take the topic to the Forum. I responded to “evangelist” as follows:

There are scriptural arguments for everything the Church teaches: the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist - that it is the actual Body and Blood of Christ, on the Papacy, on Purgatory, on the various Marian dogmas and Apostolic succession. These are not man-made ‘traditions’ which the Church invented at some point in history.

.
A Catholic Exegesis of Sacred Sripture

A Catholic Exegesis of Sared Scripture has for 2,000 years been based on four rules in the Exegisis of Scripture fully defined Established by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus (1893) seconded and confirmed by Pope Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus (1920) and by Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) Pope Pius XII declared in Divino… that Leo’s encyclical Providentisisimus for interpreting the bible to** “the supreme guide in Biblical studies”**Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church
  1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church
  2. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.
  3. Always to be guided by what the **Bible has to say as a whole **(not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote) One must take into account all of Scripture which pertains to a given doctrinal truth.
  4. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable
Most outside of the Catholic Church would ignore rule number one. But all Christians outside of the Catholic church ought to pay attentions to the last three rules particulary rule number “2” and “3”. Rule “2” states to always be guided by what the early church fathers had to say. Why? First we were not there to hear and see everything and can easily be fooled into reading something not there into Scripture or reading something out of Scripture. The First Fathers were trained by the Apostles and the preceding Fathers are closer to the time frame allowing for less corruption of the teachings to occur. We are 2,000 years removed from the original source. Second and Most Important is that Scripture is clear on this and is repeated often by Paul that we are to pay attention to both the Sacred Oral word as well as the Sacred Written word passed down.

2 Thessalonians 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm, and hold teachings that you have learned whether by word (Sacred oral teaching) or by letter of ours.”

2 Thesalonians 3:6 6* Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us ( Sacred oral teachings)

Malachi 2:7; “The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at this mouth. (Sacred Oral teaching)”

2 Timothy 2::2, “and the things that thou hast heard from me through many witnesses, commend to trust-worthy men who shall be competent in turn to teach others.”

1 Corinthians 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, because in all things you are mindful of me and hold fast my precepts as I gave them to you.”

We are told that first Christian “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles” (Acts 2, 42) which was the oral teaching that was given long before the New Testament was written.
1Cor 11:2 and hold fast my precepts (oral teaching)
2Tim 1: 13 Hold to the form of sound teaching which thous has heard from me.
Titus 1:3 manifested his word through the preaching committed to my trust by the Command of God
1Thes 2:13 …you heard and received from us the word of God

1Cor 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached (Oral teaching) unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

Furthermore John tells us that everything has not been written down.

John 21:25, “There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these would be written not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.” (Not everything concerning Christ is in the Scripture per John)

John 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not recorded in this book.

1 Timothy 3:15, “The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.”
 
The other factor is that Protestants [or anyone else] cannot use the Sacred Scriptures against the Church whose Scriptures they are.

It has been raised in similar forum ‘which Bible is right Protestant or Catholic’? There is in fact only ONE COMPLETE Bible and that is the Catholic Bible. Protestant Scriptures are in fact Catholic in origen.

Anyone who quotes the Bible are quoting Catholic Text as it was Her who decided what books would go into the Bible and what would not. The four canonical gospels are a case-in point.

But, as stated above, we also have traditions handed down to us from apostolic times. These we may be assured are also authentic teaching, since Christ promised 'the gates of death [evil] would never prevail against His Church, that by any other name is 'infallibility.
 
I know that one thing that Protestants don’t usually consider about the teachings of the Church, is, how doctrine develops. Not change, but develop. This is something that I suggest all Catholics to understand and be able to clarify. Here is an awesome explanation from an early Church Father St. Vincent of Lerins in 450AD.

CHAPTER XXIII

On Development in Religious Knowledge.
54. But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.
55. The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide diference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant’s limbs are small, a young man’s large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.
56. In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.
57. For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church’s field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of corn, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result,–there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind–wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.
Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God’s Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, theirintegrity, their characteristic properties.
 
  1. For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God’s mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly. 59. But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view,–if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude ? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils,–this, and nothing else,–she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.(1)
 
Thankyou to Copland and Michael G.

I had not read St Vincent of Lerins before, excellent.

And the 4 Rules are worth repeating:
Four rules for interpreting the Bible for the Catholic Church
  1. Always pay attention to the Magisterium the authority of the Church
Thanks be to God that we have a divinely inspired, authoritative Teaching Body that keeps us from falling into error.

2 Peter 3:16 speaking on the Apostle Paul:
“As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

A good case against private & individual interpretation.
  1. Be guided by what the early fathers had to say about a particular passage.
Going back to the 1st few generations after Jesus and the Apostles.
  1. Always to be guided by what the Bible has to say as a whole (not key phrases here and there for defining ones theology and ignoring passages which do not fit one’s theology, see opening quote) One must take into account all of Scripture which pertains to a given doctrinal truth.
👍
  1. Always take the Bible Literally unless it is reasonably unattenable
John 6 for starters; Petrine authority; confession to a priest…etc., etc…
 
Eileen,
If you’re in discussion with Protestants, (or even just for your own information) an excellent resource to have is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott. It states very succintly each Catholic dogma, doctrine, or speculation; the degree of its theological certainty; the history that lead to its being defined; scripture passages that support it; and sayings from the early fathers that support it. The history portion is really helpful in grasping the difference between our teaching and what others believe. Increased my appreciation for the wisdom and truth of Catholic teaching. It’s amazing the amount of information he can give in such a short space. There’s a good index for locating specific topics.

Nita
 
Eileen,
If you’re in discussion with Protestants, (or even just for your own information) an excellent resource to have is “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott.

Nita
Thanks Nita, I have hundreds (literally) of Catholic books, but I haven’t heard of that one. I usually use Scripture in my initial conversations with Protestants before moving on to the Early Church Fathers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top