Where is Catholicism in the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Allan1972
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even assuming the NT is correct, the deposit of faith is necessary to ensure that we understand it properly (witness the thousands of non-catholic denominations who claim to follow the Bible, but have contradicting teachings). Frank Sheed explains this quite nicely in his book, Theology for Beginners:
Code: 
   		 			 				  It seems strange so many Christians think the Apostles fulfilled their commission by writing the New Testament, leaving behind them no successors, nor any need for successors, with the authority Our Lord had given themselves. It seems strange, for one reason, that it would mean only five of the Twelve had obeyed their Master…
It would seem strange for another reason- that the Church Christ founded would have been a teaching church only for a half-century or so, in all the centuries since merely a library.

Circumstances change and someone must have the authority to apply the teachings to the new circumstances; otherwise they end up as frustrations rather than teachings. Even in the doctrines themselves there are depths which the believing mind can explore, with all the danger of error but all the rich possibilities of development. With every operation of the unstagnant mind of man upon the truth, the question must arise, “What did Christ mean?”

So it has proved. There is not a word uttered by Christ which has not met a number of diverse interpretations, some of them intelligent, some immensely attractive, but contradicting each other. How are we to know? It is not enough to have Our Lord’s words; the words themselves can only be a kind of talisman without the meaning. Without a teacher- to tell us, beyond the possibility of error, which of the various meanings is Christ’s- we should have no revelation but only an everlasting pile of conundrums.
Click to expand...
 
MrS said:
Neither Luke nor Mark were Apostles.

Most of the Apostles either wrote little,… or nothing.

Jesus did not instruct them to write anything.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say Luke is an apostle. I said he is the disciple of St. Paul.

I stand corrected on Mark. Mark is another companion of Paul.

Only John, and Matthew wrote theirs.

Peter, Paul, and James wrote the Epistles. Though, Paul is not one of the original 12 Apostles.
 
Allan1972, Catholics agree that the Bible is the word of God. We do not, however, believe it is the ONLY word of God. We believe God’s revelation to humanity is found in two sources: (1) the Bible; and (2) Apostolic Tradition, meaning the preaching of the Apostles. The Bible itself tells us that.

“We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers,” 1 Thes. 2:13.

“Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle,” 2 Thes. 2:15.

“Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us,” 2 Thes. 3:6.

“Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us,” 2 Tim 1:13-14.

No verse of the Bible says to use “only” the Bible — that’s the point being expressed.

Most Catholic belief can be supported from Scripture, but we reject the underlying assumption that we MUST prove everything from Scripture. God’s word given via Apostolic preaching is just as true as God’s word given via the Bible.
 
Gamera said:
Allan1972, Catholics agree that the Bible is the word of God. We do not, however, believe it is the ONLY word of God. We believe God’s revelation to humanity is found in two sources: (1) the Bible; and (2) Apostolic Tradition, meaning the preaching of the Apostles. The Bible itself tells us that.

“We also constantly give thanks to God for this, that when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God’s word, which is also at work in you believers,” 1 Thes. 2:13.

“Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle,” 2 Thes. 2:15.

“Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us,” 2 Thes. 3:6.

“Hold to the standard of sound teaching that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good treasure entrusted to you with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us,” 2 Tim 1:13-14.

No verse of the Bible says to use “only” the Bible — that’s the point being expressed.

Most Catholic belief can be supported from Scripture, but we reject the underlying assumption that we MUST prove everything from Scripture. God’s word given via Apostolic preaching is just as true as God’s word given via the Bible.
Click to expand...
That sums up the basic understanding of Catholics and the Bible.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
Peter, Paul, and James wrote the Epistles. Though, Paul is not one of the original 12 Apostles.
Click to expand...
correct, Paul is not one of the Apostles. Our brothers in Christ often elevate him to the level of the 12, but that was not possible. Acts tells us how the only replacement for Judas could come from a man who actually was there for all of Jesus ministry. Two were qualified. One was choosen.

St Paul was truly an apostle to the gentiles.

and don’t forget Jude… or John’s letters either;)
 
MrS said:
correct, Paul is not one of the Apostles. Our brothers in Christ often elevate him to the level of the 12, but that was not possible. Acts tells us how the only replacement for Judas could come from a man who actually was there for all of Jesus ministry. Two were qualified. One was choosen.

St Paul was truly an apostle to the gentiles.

and don’t forget Jude… or John’s letters either;)
Click to expand...
Jude and John of course.
 
lak611 said:
John the Apostle also wrote the book of Revelation.
Click to expand...
and St. Jerome who translated all it into Latin…

I’m on a roll… yeah I know he isn’t one of the apostle or their companion but he did translated our Bible… 😉
 
Where is ‘catholic’ mentioned in the bible?

Everywhere!!!

You cannot use the scripures against her whose scriptures they are 👍

Where is ‘protestant’? 😉
 
As I am adding my opinion late in this thread I hope I will not be writing something that was already posted as a main theme.

Being a Catholic I do reject the concept of Sola Scripture and accept that Divine Revelation has come to us through Sacred Scripture and through Sacred Tradition. I do believe other post have provide scriptural references to the existence of Sacred Tradition as a source which is prior to and forms the basis of the NT so I will not go into that.

What I would like to do is return to the original post of Allan1972 about where to find Catholicism in the Bible.

First, I think that what must be corrected or clarified is the equation of The Church within the confines of the term “Roman” Catholicism. If you study the history of the term “Roman Catholicism” one will find that this is a term that developed out of England and is just a few hundred years old. It was a term that originally was used by Anglican Theologians in an effort to proclaim 3 traditions within the “Catholic Church”, namely, the Anglican Tradition, the Orthodox (Greek) Tradition and the Roman Tradition.

The “Roman Catholic” Church is really an invention of the English speaking world. The Catholic Church, in all her proclamations, doctrines, dogmas and Constitutions never uses the term “Roman” Catholic only Catholic. However, in this day and age it has become synonymous to those Churches in union with the Pope.

Also, all have to acknowledge that it is imposible to find the term “Catholic” as the name used for the Church in the NT. “The Way” was used but almost exclusively the term used in the NT for the Church is “Church”.

I bring all this up just to help identify where I am coming from in my response. I am therefore proceeding in this thread assuming the question is how or where is the Roman Catholic Church found in the NT?
 
“Catholic” means universal and the Church’s universality in the very birth of the Church in Acts 2. When reading Acts 2, we find that the “12” our Blessed Mother (her presence must have been important because Luke specificlly list her) and all believers were gathered in prayer when they recieved the Holy Spirit promised her by Jesus Christ. But here is an important fact. The “12” were present and it was to them that Jesus gave the mandate to bring the gospel to all nations and to baptize all men. Also, when the Apostles went into public and began to proclaim the “Good News” all people, despite their origin and language, heard and understood what the apostles in general and Peter spicifically proclaimed. This is a clear indication of the universality of the gospel message and the Church’s mandate to spread the gospel message and baptized all men, that is, to make all members of the one Church.

So we find in the beginning of Acts the universality (Catholicism) of the Church. One doesn’t have to read too deeply all of Acts to get and understanding that the Gospel message was meant for the whole world - for all men. We find this with Philip’s mission in Samaria and his baptism of the Ethiopian, with Peter’s vision and baptism of Cornelius and his household and Peter subsequent explanation of his actions to the Jerusalem Community. We also find this in the community at Antioch, the Council of Jerusalem and for the remainder of Acts Paul’s missionary activities. All these show the Catholicism of the Church in the Bible.

However, as implied earlier, I infer that the question of this thread is rooted in trying to find the scriptural basis for the Catholic (Roman) Church which must include the Church’s hierarchical structure which ultimately leads to the Petrine Ministry all rooted in what we Catholics hold is the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Sacramental Life also rooted in the Sacred Tradition.

In all my studies of the NT I have never found a NT community that was not structured not rooted in the oral tradition of the Apostles. No community exist in the NT and I would be most interested for someone to point out where such a community existed. The NT Church’s were founded on the Apostolic Tradition which was oral, not written - there was no NT, it hadn’t been written so it had to be oral. The OT was present and was revered but it was always understood and interperted in light of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. All one has to do is to read any of Paul’s letters or any of the other letters of the NT to understand this. In the Gospels, all OT references clearly point to Christ. So the Church’s of the NT were clearly founded on the Oral Traditions of the Apostles.

Paul, as we find in Acts 9 and throughout his letters, was clearly choosen by Jesus Christ for his mission. However, if one reads Acts, Paul understood the necessity to be in union with the other Apostles and was send by them (Acts 9, 11, 12,14, 15 and the letter to the Galatians 2.) Granted, that throughout Acts and as related in his letters Paul acts what is seemily independant of the other Apostles still if one reads through all the inconsistencies of Paul’s writings with what is related in Acts, Paul still acknowledges his dependence on the tradition he has received from Peter and the Apostles. Discipline is one thing Doctrine is another and Paul never deviates from the doctrine of the Apostles.

So what was proclaimed by the Church in her missionary activity in the NT was rooted in the oral traditions of the Apostles, and as we find in Acts and Paul’s letters how this traditions was being passed on and preserved in the Churches founded by Paul, churches, we know from his letters to the Corinthians as well as his pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus and from Acts, that were not egalitarian or pure democratic in structure but were hierarchical. We find in Paul’s writings terms such as “overseers” “deacons” “prsebyters” “apostles” “prophets” etc. Each with what we assume are particular functions although the exact nature of each ministry in each church is not fully known and was in different stages of development, still they existed (if they didn’t exist why were they presented by Paul and why do we find men with these titles in Acts?) Also, from Acts and Paul’s writtings, not just anyone received the ministry of deacon or overseer or presbyter, but only those chosen by Paul or another Apostle and whose position was confered by the placing on hands. Most important, as we read in Acts, such as with the choice of Matthias as the succesor of Judas, the Church understood it had the power to confer this and this power came from the Holy Spirit (if you read throughout Acts, all transfers of authority or commission to missionary activity was understood as coming from the authority of the Church by the power of the Holy Spirit, to fulfill the Church’s mandate given her by Christ (MT 28).
 
Allan1972 said:
I don’t side with either the eastern christians or the muslims. I don’t doubt that the Catholic Church is still here. The question is whether the church has been exactly the same since it began.
Click to expand...
We don’t claim that all the details are just as they were. We claim that the teachings, though often refined and developed, emerged as an organic whole, as the Holy Spirit has guided the Church “into all the truth.”

A commonly cited analogy is that I am the same person I was when I was an infant, but I have changed greatly. Another is that an acorn doesn’t look like an oak tree, but it contains within itself everything it needs (with the addition of time and in response to the conditions in which it is planted) to become an oak tree.

We don’t claim that the Church today is still an acorn. If it remained static, it would not be a living body.
 
Allan1972 said:
There’s nothing wrong with Christians talking to politicians about change lik paul went to talk to ceasar. ther problem is when they are trying to have someone killed for there beliefs, even if someone is a heretic, christians don’t take it upon themselves to have someone imprisoned or killed.
Click to expand...
You mean like the Palestinians in Isreal? Any idea who is pushing that agenda? It is causing untold amounts of death. I’ll give you 33 guesses.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Allan1972 said:
I’m not a protestant, so i don’t know why you are telling me, I’m quoting these things because some people keep saying that the Catholic Church has always been the same. Please pay attention to who I am quoting from and you’ll understand what I’m trying to point out.
Click to expand...
Actually you are, try as you might to deny it.

Secondly you have been all over the board, basically the thread has meandered all over the place. There doesn’t seem to be a particular point.

However certainly you have shown a lack of biblical knowledge and understanding, which is a fairly dangerous thing.

I do find one thing extremly interesting though. myfavoritmaritn gave you some advice about the forum and stated you are a new or young christian. I think it is intriguing that you know so little about the faith (christianity), yet what you have been taught right off the bat, instead of the faith, is a catechesis in anti catholicism.

Shouldn’t that be ringing really loud bells for you? Christ being taught second (which apparently hasn’t been gotten to yet) to that of hating something else first?

I know it tells me a lot.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene
 
Allan1972 said:
Someone tell me what they think is better than the KJV.
I refer to KJV because it is the most accurate english version.
Click to expand...
Are you saying this on the basis of your own study of the original Hebrew and Greek? Or are you simply accepting this because someone you trust has told you so?

I like the KJV myself, and I’m not sure one can single out one particular translation as overall the most accurate. I don’t think it would be the KJV in any case, though–more likely the old RSV or the NASB. But I really don’t know, and don’t think the question is very important, because all translations have flaws and if you don’t know the originals the best approach is to consult several translations. There’s also something to be said for just trusting the Church and using the version that your particular church recommends, and/or the version that you were given when you became a Christian.
as far as religion is concerned, I’m a christian.
Click to expand...
So are most of us on this forum–yet we don’t all agree on some important stuff. That’s why, annoying as they are, specific labels are helpful.
someone asked why something has to be in the bible to be good doctrine. I think its pretty easy to understand that Jesus is the Word.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Jesus, not first and foremost the Bible. That’s an important point to establish.
And if its not in his word, its not true.
Click to expand...
Assuming for the moment that the Word of Jesus is the Bible and only the Bible (something Catholics deny and something you have no so far even tried to prove), there are a lot of problems with what you have just said:
  1. There are lots of issues that the Bible doesn’t even address. It would follow therefore that on those issues all opinions are false, which is impossible. Note that you didn’t even restrict your claim to religious matters (and do you really want to say that the Word of God only applies to some particular “religious” class of things?). Taken literally, you said that since the Bible doesn’t say anything about World War II, therefore there was no such war.
  2. There are many ideas and practices that have developed from the Church’s reflection on the Bible, but may not be explicitly found there by a person reading the Bible without any training in the Church’s tradition of interpretation. The Trinity would be the most obvious example, which is probably why people have mentioned it already. Is the Trinity a false doctrine? If it isn’t, then “what is found in the Bible” is clearly a bit more complex than your original post implied.
  3. If everything true is revealed by Jesus (an ostensibly plausible claim given John 1:1) then the reverse of what you are saying would actually follow. Rather than everything true being in the Bible, it would follow that the “word of Jesus” encompasses every kind of truth–scientific truth, historical truth, etc. In a sense I would agree with that. But Christians have traditionally believed–and 2 Timothy 3:16 explicitly says–that revealed Scripture is profitable for a particular purpose. It does not and cannot contain all truth. (Whether it even contains all truth needed for that particular purpose is the more usual debate–but you phrased your argument far more broadly than that.)
4.Scripture itself does not say that it is the exclusive Word of God, or that all truth is contained in it. By your own argument then, it would follow that your basic premises are false, since they aren’t in Scripture.
  1. But here’s the really big problem with your argument. Scripture does not tell us that any part of the NT except for Paul’s letters is Scripture (it also doesn’t name every part of the OT as Scripture–Esther is the most obvious example). Therefore, if your claim is correct, the Gospels, Acts, all the Epistles not written by Paul (including Hebrews since Scripture does not say Paul wrote it), and Revelation (besides significant parts of the Old Testament) are not themselves part of Scripture and thus contain nothing but falsehood. But from this it would follow that II Peter–which says Paul’s letters are Scripture–is false. Therefore Paul’s letters are not Scripture. Therefore none of the NT is Scripture, and everything in it is false. Therefore the OT books cited in the NT as Scripture are not in fact Scripture, and are false too.
Therefore, by your argument, there is no Scripture at all and every statement without exception is false.

Nice mess you’ve landed us in!

In Christ,

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Are you saying this on the basis of your own study of the original Hebrew and Greek? Or are you simply accepting this because someone you trust has told you so?

I like the KJV myself, and I’m not sure one can single out one particular translation as overall the most accurate. I don’t think it would be the KJV in any case, though–more likely the old RSV or the NASB. But I really don’t know, and don’t think the question is very important, because all translations have flaws and if you don’t know the originals the best approach is to consult several translations. There’s also something to be said for just trusting the Church and using the version that your particular church recommends, and/or the version that you were given when you became a Christian.

So are most of us on this forum–yet we don’t all agree on some important stuff. That’s why, annoying as they are, specific labels are helpful.

Agreed. Jesus, not first and foremost the Bible. That’s an important point to establish.

Assuming for the moment that the Word of Jesus is the Bible and only the Bible (something Catholics deny and something you have no so far even tried to prove), there are a lot of problems with what you have just said:
  1. There are lots of issues that the Bible doesn’t even address. It would follow therefore that on those issues all opinions are false, which is impossible. Note that you didn’t even restrict your claim to religious matters (and do you really want to say that the Word of God only applies to some particular “religious” class of things?). Taken literally, you said that since the Bible doesn’t say anything about World War II, therefore there was no such war.
  2. There are many ideas and practices that have developed from the Church’s reflection on the Bible, but may not be explicitly found there by a person reading the Bible without any training in the Church’s tradition of interpretation. The Trinity would be the most obvious example, which is probably why people have mentioned it already. Is the Trinity a false doctrine? If it isn’t, then “what is found in the Bible” is clearly a bit more complex than your original post implied.
  3. If everything true is revealed by Jesus (an ostensibly plausible claim given John 1:1) then the reverse of what you are saying would actually follow. Rather than everything true being in the Bible, it would follow that the “word of Jesus” encompasses every kind of truth–scientific truth, historical truth, etc. In a sense I would agree with that. But Christians have traditionally believed–and 2 Timothy 3:16 explicitly says–that revealed Scripture is profitable for a particular purpose. It does not and cannot contain all truth. (Whether it even contains all truth needed for that particular purpose is the more usual debate–but you phrased your argument far more broadly than that.)
4.Scripture itself does not say that it is the exclusive Word of God, or that all truth is contained in it. By your own argument then, it would follow that your basic premises are false, since they aren’t in Scripture.
  1. But here’s the really big problem with your argument. Scripture does not tell us that any part of the NT except for Paul’s letters is Scripture (it also doesn’t name every part of the OT as Scripture–Esther is the most obvious example). Therefore, if your claim is correct, the Gospels, Acts, all the Epistles not written by Paul (including Hebrews since Scripture does not say Paul wrote it), and Revelation (besides significant parts of the Old Testament) are not themselves part of Scripture and thus contain nothing but falsehood. But from this it would follow that II Peter–which says Paul’s letters are Scripture–is false. Therefore Paul’s letters are not Scripture. Therefore none of the NT is Scripture, and everything in it is false. Therefore the OT books cited in the NT as Scripture are not in fact Scripture, and are false too.
Therefore, by your argument, there is no Scripture at all and every statement without exception is false.

Nice mess you’ve landed us in!

In Christ,

Edwin
Click to expand...
Edwin,

Wow, this is the by far the best explaination given here to Allens question.

I hope you do not mind but I am planning on saving it and rereading it and do some studying off of it.

Thank you!
 
Allan,

Well after 8 pages of replies, there is very little left to say.

My only suggestion (perhaps someone already said it) is next time you start a thread just bring one specific point forward. Because your quesion in this thread is so broad nothing really has been resolved. Also, a bit of a disappointment has been that the vast majority of your posts on this thread are merely a few sentences long and carry very little depth. I do admire your courage and determination to venture in this catholic site, however you should have an equal determination to expand on your responses. For example you stated that the KJV is the most accurate translation…WHY IS THAT?..WHAT PROOF CAN YOU PROVIDE FOR SUCH STATEMENT? etc.

Whenever you present your viewpoint on a certain matter make sure you include the reasoning behind such statement…i.e. answer the fundamental question WHY IS THAT? that way we know where you are coming from.

BTW It is a pleasure to have you on this site and hope you will learn more about the Catholic Faith

God bless

Alex
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top