Why do non-Catholics try to use our Scriptures against us?

[dessert]

Ps 119
This psalm, the longest by far in the psalter, praises God for giving such splendid laws and instructioon for pople to lvie by. The author glorifies and thanks Gos for the Torah, prys for protectionfrom sinners enragedby others fidelity to the law, laments the cost of obedience, delights in the laws consolations, begs for wisdom to understand the precepts, and asks for the rewards of keeping them. Several expected elements do not appear in the psalm;Mount sinai withwith the story of God’s revelationsand gift to Israel of instruction and commandments, the temple and other institutionsrelated to revelation and laws(frequent in other psalms)The psalm is fascinated withGod’s word directing and guiding human life.
The poem is an acrostic; its twenty -two stanzas (of eight verses each) are in the order fo the Hebrew alphabet. Each of the eight verses within a stanza begins with the same letter. Each verse contains one word for “instruction” . The translation here given attempts to translate each hebrew word for “instruction” with the same english word. However there are nine words for “instruction” not eight, so the principle for a different word for “instruction” in each verse cannot be maintained with perfect consistency. The nine words for “instruction” in the translation are; law,edict,command,precept,word,utterance,way,decree, and teaching. narrative NAB Dessert

 

[cleargospel99]

Ps 119
The psalm is fascinated withGod’s word directing and guiding human life.

Well done. You’ve gone straight to the heart of the issue, however I hope you took the time to read the psalm as well.

I think it is essential for anyone who claims Jesus Christ as his Lord to be immersed regularly in the scripture.

It really isn’t a Catholic v. Protestant issue. If all of us, trusted the plain meaning of the text of scripture and relied a little less on the opinions of others, we might find more common ground and far less to argue about.

I may be mistaken, but I doubt that your church would say that 45 minutes at Mass on Sunday is sufficient exposure to the Word to provide for your spiritual growth.

Our commitment to God should permeate our lives and be about more than what building we worship in on Sunday. It is through each of us that the gospel is proclaimed to the world, and in order to proclaim that gospel we must be familiar with it.

v/r
cg99

 

[Chancellare]

Not quite.

The fact is that the infallible church of Rome does not have a formal position on the matter. Some Romans adopt partim-partim, some adopt material sufficiency. Yes these to methodologies are contradictory, but that is something that as yet remains unresolved.

I think however either Patrick Madrid, or James Akin would take issue with your characterization of their position on material sufficiency as the same as Sola Scriptura. These are the leading apologists featured on CA and others. (I do try to read your stuff)

You can’t find Pope in the bible either. So do you reject that as well?

Actually the word “sufficient” occurs at least 5 times in the bible.
Kind of blows up your theory.

Here’s a homework assignment: Read Psalm 119, and then tell me how God thinks we should view the Holy Scripture.

**The only reason, you feel others can use your scripture against you, is for the simple reason that you really don’t know what it says. **

The scripture is unique because it is not a disjointed collections of wisdom writings, full of meaningless platitudes. It is a history of God’s revelation over 1600 years, and 40 authors It has a beginning a middle and an end. It all fits togther, there is no need to go looking for mysterious codes or allegories. It is not fiction.

It is plain enough, that the fundamental truths of the faith can be gleaned from a dedicated study of the text. This does not obviate the role of the church as the “pillar and foundation”.

The church is commanded to be obedient to the Word and subject to its correction from time to time.

Please don’t spread the argument peripherally. That fallacy does not work here.
I respectfully request your answer straight on:
Which verse says that the the Bible is the only sufficient rule?

 

[colliric]

Well done. You’ve gone straight to the heart of the issue, however I hope you took the time to read the psalm as well.

I think it is essential for anyone who claims Jesus Christ as his Lord to be immersed regularly in the scripture.

It really isn’t a Catholic v. Protestant issue. If all of us, trusted the
plain meaning of the text of scripture and relied a little less on the opinions of others, we might find more common ground and far less to argue about.
**
I may be mistaken, but I doubt that your church would say that 45 minutes at Mass on Sunday is sufficient exposure to the Word to provide for your spiritual growth. **

Our commitment to God should permeate our lives and be about more than what building we worship in on Sunday. It is through each of us that the gospel is proclaimed to the world, and in order to proclaim that gospel we must be familiar with it.

v/r
cg99

You are correct her Cleargospel99, our church leads by example, that’s why mass is everyday if one wants to be immersed in scripture… It’s not just Sunday in the Catholic Church, you have the choice to go every single day to hear and think about bible in our church. You don’t get that in many protestant churches.

Sunday is not Adequate for scripture reading, it is however “the bare minimum”. We are, just like you guys, really really encouraged to read the bible(the catholic original, not the protestant cut-down), personally.

Personally I’m reading about 30 or 45 minutes of the bible(it’s usually about 3 chapters of the OT and 1 chapter of the NT, because my knowledge of the OT is seriously lacking outside of Torah) at home each day these days. and I always pray the short hand(1 mystery each day) Rosary beforehand to complete the hour of scripture study, it really clears your mind and helps you begin to think about the greatness of the things you are about to read.

However learning Church tradition(and even apologetics) is just as important as scripture for Catholics. The reason being that Catholics understand when the bible says “word of god” it is not talking only about the written down “word of God”, but the entire teachings of god, some of which are shockingly to protestants, not written down exclusively in the book of God that our Church put together for him, but rather were revealed by the Apostles verbally, i.e “The spoken word of god”.

On a diffrent issue I don’t think protestants have an adequate understanding of the Deuterocanon these days, they seem to fire without knowing what they are firing at if you know what I mean. It was not so when every copy of protestant bible had the deuterocanon as “apocrypha” as most of them read at least some form of it, even if it was a “not very catholic” translation.

It’s nice to see that might be changing, the KJV full 1611 original version(complete with original study notes and the Deuterocanon, with the other Orthodox canon books like “Judith” too, as “apocrypha” in the middle of it rather than at the end) is finally being fully distributed very cheaply as a paperback again(After about nearly a hundred years since it became standard to even cut down that version of the Bible by excluding them), that’s a step in the right direction. Heck I saw that version in the local Catholic Bookshelf next to the GNB.

 

[colliric]

Please don’t spread the argument peripherally. That fallacy does not work here.
I respectfully request your answer straight on:
Which verse says that the the Bible is the only sufficient rule?

Yes that’s the problem that protestants really have to grapple with, they don’t seem to understand that the Word of God is not something which is exclusively written down. They take the last few verses of Apocalypse right out of the context of it being about the prophecy it contains and about the dangers of tinkering with it’s vision by changing it, adding to it, or cutting it down. They apply it to the whole bible as supporting Sola Scriptura, when as a book it’s talking about itself and not exclusively the 71 other books(Notice 71… not 65!).

Even when taken out of context and applied to the whole bible It still doesn’t support Sola Scriptura anyway, it’s simply talking about the dangers of “editing down” the 72 book bible, which protestants are quite happy to do anyway(Don’t bother refuting me or feeling insulted, It’s my own opinion, you don’t have to agree, I respect your opinion that you don’t do that).

 

[Traveller1534]

I can understand that there are teachings that may not come directly from scripture, but practicing in various fashions that are contradicting to scripture is where I would have a serious problem.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

The Roman Catholic Church is based on Pagan religion and it dates back to Babylon. Why do your priests wear the hat of Dagon the fish god?

The Catholic Church hijacked the Scriptures and denied them to the common man. For centuries man had to relie on the priest to tell him what God said. The common man wasn’t allowed to have Scriptures. If someone was caught giving out tracts of Bible they were burned at the stake.

The great reformers tried to change the Catholic Church. Luther didn’t want to leave the church but wanted to reform it, bring it back to the Bible but Babylon will not be healed and so he came out and said the Bible and the Bible alone is our standard.

Jesus said in vain do they worship me teaching the commandments of men.

Wow…if there is one thing i have learned about converts to catholicism is this : before becoming catholics they were vehemently anti-catholic ! See you in church !

 

[cleargospel99]

Yes that’s the problem that protestants really have to grapple with, they don’t seem to understand that the Word of God is not something which is exclusively written down. They take the last few verses of Apocalypse right out of the context of it being about the prophecy it contains and about the dangers of tinkering with it’s vision by changing it, adding to it, or cutting it down. They apply it to the whole bible as supporting Sola Scriptura, when as a book it’s talking about itself and not exclusively the 71 other books(Notice 71… not 65!).

Even when taken out of context and applied to the whole bible It still doesn’t support Sola Scriptura anyway, it’s simply talking about the dangers of “editing down” the 72 book bible, which protestants are quite happy to do anyway(Don’t bother refuting me or feeling insulted, It’s my own opinion, you don’t have to agree, I respect your opinion that you don’t do that).

I think you are right on point. The issue for the Refomer’s was that you cannot definitively distinguish which traditions are God-breathed from those that are not, without relying on the Scripture.

Jerome did not regard the deutero-canon books as having the same status as the God-breathed scripture and he said so. In fact the term means secondary canon.

Here is a fairly good article on the canon of the Western Church:

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The only difference between Rome and the Reformers is the OT canon, not the NT canon. The Reformers adopted Jesus’ version of the OT.

Trent adopted the Septuagint wholesale without determining whether included text were in fact God-breathed.

None of the OT deutero-canon are quoted by the NT authors. Jesus testifies himself, to the extent of the OT canon in Luke 24:44 44He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

 

[dessert]

Well done. You’ve gone straight to the heart of the issue, however I hope you took the time to read the psalm as well.

I think it is essential for anyone who claims Jesus Christ as his Lord to be immersed regularly in the scripture.

It really isn’t a Catholic v. Protestant issue. If all of us, trusted the plain meaning of the text of scripture and relied a little less on the opinions of others, we might find more common ground and far less to argue about.

I may be mistaken, but I doubt that your church would say that 45 minutes at Mass on Sunday is sufficient exposure to the Word to provide for your spiritual growth.

Our commitment to God should permeate our lives and be about more than what building we worship in on Sunday. It is through each of us that the gospel is proclaimed to the world, and in order to proclaim that gospel we must be familiar with it.

v/r
cg99

I read the bible more now as a Catholic than when I did as a protestant. Yes I have read the psalm 119 through and my bible has many references to the other psallms with similar scripts.

Our church has a sunday bulletin with suggested scripture for each day and i try to follow along as it usually has to do with readings for sunday.

My life is very permeated with the word in music, prayers the games here and discussion here. God Bless you

Psalm 119;37
Sadhe; You are righteous Lord and just are your edicts. NAB

Tobit’s prayer for death;
refer; Tobit 3;2 “You are righteous, O Lord and all your deeds are just; all your ways are mercy and truth; you are the judge of the world.” NAB

One small step a giant leap?
“As Peter walked through the streets of Jerusalem, many people brought their sick friends and relatives to him “in order that Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them… And they were all cured” (Acts 5;15-16) it was such a simple act- taking a friend to the side of the road- but it resulted in amazing miracles. Jesus didn’t wait for them to drum up a heroic amount of faith. All he wanted was for them to take one small step toward him, and he came runing to them.”

Trust and recieve;
“Lord Jesus, the force of your love is beyond words. For the sake of your sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world”

The four gospels are proclaimed through the witness of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. This I live best in the example of my own life which is my witness in the one true faith of the Roman Catholic Church.

We say the Nicene Creed and today Fahter gave a sermon on this first part.
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is , seen and unseen;…
This means we have hope and trust so we agree on this huh?
May you have a blessed week and visit a mass sometime in a CC near you you might be surprised how you might like it. Just go in and no one will try to rope you into anything. I must go to work. Dessert

 

[dessert]

: Wow…if there is one thing i have learned about converts to catholicism is this : before becoming catholics they were vehemently anti-catholic ! See you in church !

I wasn’t quite like Paul, I was more apathetic.
T rying to juggle my whole life and I am a revert but then I had to start defending oh boy then I had to actually learn the bible and my Catechism. Whewww isn’t it wonderful they come here and give us all this practice like a batting cage or ping pong table and the pongs don’t smart too much. Gotta love it
My DH is a Peter or Paul can’t quite make up my mind yet and he is a sweet challenge because now I am right someimtes oh!!! the Prot v the Cat who will be alive or dead:shrug: who cares? My father said today we are all on the same boat anyways the
T… I…T…A…N…I…C. I hope he was kidding? Dessert

 

[dessert]

I can understand that there are teachings that may not come directly from scripture, but practicing in various fashions that are contradicting to scripture is where I would have a serious problem.

Be sure to wear pink on tuesday and green on sunday then you will be in fashion Ireally do need to get to work and punch the clock!!! Dessert

 

[distracted]

Think about what you just said. If you have free will, then your choice to do evil is done outside the scope of God’s governing Will that controls the universe.

But, the consequence of your decision to do evil impacts the universe, not just yourself, so you have a universal chain reaction of uncontrolled events starting with the originating act of “allowed” disobedience.

Now you have to multiply the affect a billions of times, going back many generations, the permeutations are virtually infinite, because according to scripture (all have sinned).

If all the constant sinning, which impacts not only the sinner but all those other victims, then virtually everything that happens, must happen outside the Will of God.

But if we believe that, then how can we simultaneously assert that God is in control, and “everything works together for good”?

If you follow your premise to its conclusion, then random chance must rule and God is not near, but at a distance, observing but not interfering.

Can Satan, or anyone else for that matter, thwart God’s absolute purpose?

(If you are wondering what this has to do with the original thread…
The answer to my question should be fairly straight forward for anyone familiar with the text of the scripture.)

For example: Isaiah 55:11

I don’t know about anyone else, but i believe that MOST of what humans do is OUTSIDE The will of God, that is the perfect will of God. It is not outside his permissive will, though…
The Scriptures tell us that “the way to eternal life is narrow and there are few who find it…” The reason it is narrow is that it is SO hard to do… the Good is not always easy to see, much less easy to choose… and impossible to choose every single time… (we are human beings…).
This is why Jesus had to die to pay for our sins… There was no other way… We couldn’t get to God by our own merits… not in a thousand lifetimes… (not without Jesus).

 

[dessert]

Think about what you just said. If you have free will, then your choice to do evil is done outside the scope of God’s governing Will that controls the universe.

But, the consequence of your decision to do evil impacts the universe, not just yourself, so you have a universal chain reaction of uncontrolled events starting with the originating act of “allowed” disobedience.

Now you have to multiply the affect a billions of times, going back many generations, the permeutations are virtually infinite, because according to scripture (all have sinned).

If all the constant sinning, which impacts not only the sinner but all those other victims, then virtually everything that happens, must happen outside the Will of God.

But if we believe that, then how can we simultaneously assert that God is in control, and “everything works together for good”?

If you follow your premise to its conclusion, then random chance must rule and God is not near, but at a distance, observing but not interfering.

Can Satan, or anyone else for that matter, thwart God’s absolute purpose?

(If you are wondering what this has to do with the original thread…
The answer to my question should be fairly straight forward for anyone familiar with the text of the scripture.)

For example: Isaiah 55:11

We are never outside of the will of God, God is near Isaiah 55;6
Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near.

Yes I am wondering what you have been getting at for a long time.

Let me try a protestant thing on you, remember the poem footprints in the sand? What is Jesus carrying when there is only one set of footprints? ( what is he really carrrying?)
Answer this question and you will have your answer.

Dessert

 

[colliric]

I think you are right on point. The issue for the Refomer’s was that you cannot definitively distinguish which traditions are God-breathed from those that are not, without relying on the Scripture.

Jerome did not regard the deutero-canon books as having the same status as the God-breathed scripture and he said so. In fact the term means secondary canon.

Here is a fairly good article on the canon of the Western Church:

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

The only difference between Rome and the Reformers is the OT canon, not the NT canon. The Reformers adopted **Jesus’ version of the OT. **

Trent adopted the Septuagint wholesale without determining whether included text were in fact God-breathed.

None of the OT deutero-canon are quoted by the NT authors. Jesus testifies himself, to the extent of the OT canon in Luke 24:44 44He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”

Incorrect, in fact according to the Gospels Jesus almost exclusivly quoted from the Greek Septuagint.

His reference to “the law of moses, the prophets and the Psalms” is not against the structure Septuagint, even though Protestants will make you believe so.

The septuagint is structured in 5 sections. The first of cause is the law of moses. The second one is the Prophets… so far so good. Now we come to what appears initially to be a hurdle, The sections of the septuagint called “writings” and “Poetry”. Two Diffrent sections right?

On closer inspection however one finds out that these sections are in fact a split of the “Psalms” section of Scripture, with the Deuterocanon interspersed in between the other books. They are therefore 1 section, “Psalms”, with 2 subsections in it “Writings” and “Poetry”.

So we have now realised there is only 4 main sections to the Septuagint, so now we supposedly have 1 extra section of the septuagint scripture not accounted for. That is the solitary book 4 Maccabees. But wait a minute, that book is an Appendix! and anyway it was likely added to the septuagint after the death of Christ!

So as you can clearly see, the Septuagint has 3 major sections(Law, prophets, Psalms), 2 subsections of the Psalm section and 1 appendix book.

What puts the icing on the cake is Christ’s direct quoting from it. In fact it is quoted from 300 times in the NT out of a possible 370 something… It was good enough for the apostles of Christ, it was good enough for Christ to quote from it directly, it’s good enough for me to respect use(with exception of the books added after Christ, or which are purely fictional).

 

[cleargospel99]

Incorrect, in fact according to the Gospels Jesus almost exclusivly quoted from the Greek Septuagint.

His reference to “the law of moses, the prophets and the Psalms” is not against the structure Septuagint, even though Protestants will make you believe so.

The septuagint is structured in 5 sections. The first of cause is the law of moses. The second one is the Prophets… so far so good. Now we come to what appears initially to be a hurdle, The sections of the septuagint called “writings” and “Poetry”. Two Diffrent sections right?

On closer inspection however one finds out that these sections are in fact a split of the “Psalms” section of Scripture, with the Deuterocanon interspersed in between the other books. They are therefore 1 section, “Psalms”, with 2 subsections in it “Writings” and “Poetry”.

So we have now realised there is only 4 main sections to the Septuagint, so now we supposedly have 1 extra section of the septuagint scripture not accounted for. That is the solitary book 4 Maccabees. But wait a minute, that book is an Appendix! and anyway it was likely added to the septuagint after the death of Christ!

So as you can clearly see, the Septuagint has 3 major sections(Law, prophets, Psalms), 2 subsections of the Psalm section and 1 appendix book.

What puts the icing on the cake is Christ’s direct quoting from it. In fact it is quoted from 300 times in the NT out of a possible 370 something… It was good enough for the apostles of Christ, it was good enough for Christ to quote from it directly, it’s good enough for me to respect use(with exception of the books added after Christ, or which are purely fictional).

You are very close to the truth, but you overlook one small point.

Yes Jesus and his disciples used the Greek Septuagint, however, they do not quote from any of the deutero-canon. So your argument is a little week on that point.

That the Septuagint contained writings that were not scripture, alongside writings that were, is not news.

Obviously they recognized which writings possessed divine inspiration (that is: were God-breathed 2Tim3:14-17) and those that were not.

Remember Jesus and Paul confirm that the Jews
were the keepers of the Oracles of God, so they possessed, the “infallible” authority on that matter and they did not view the (approx 7 books + addl writings) deutero-canon as scripture.

Jerome addressed this himself as he assembled the original Latin Vulgate.

The Reformers didn’t edit the Bible willy-nilly, they had good reason to separate the deutero-canon, just as Jerome had done, and many others. The Reformers were serious academics who were well versed in their Gospel and their church history.

 

[cleargospel99]

We are never outside of the will of God, God is near Isaiah 55;6
Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near.

Yes I am wondering what you have been getting at for a long time.

Let me try a protestant thing on you, remember the poem footprints in the sand? What is Jesus carrying when there is only one set of footprints? ( what is he really carrrying?)
Answer this question and you will have your answer.

Dessert

Indeed,

But I think you and I share a minority opinion on this board.

Romans 8:38-39

38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[a] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[guanophore]

I like the way how Catholics claim the Bible was written by them. There was no such thing as a Catholic Church until after 476AD.

Apparently something is lacking in your history study, daro. There WERE no other churches until 1054, when the Eastern Orthodox and the Western (Roman) Catholics split. Up until that time, all were “catholic”, and of course, they wrote the bible. This word first appears in the writings of Irenaeus in the early second century.

Around the year 110, Roman soldiers were leading Ignatius to Rome where martyrdom awaited him. On his journey the holy bishop wrote letters to local churches.

“The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself or by some person authorized by him [that is, a duly ordained priest]. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church” (8:1, 2).

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9107conv.asp

Catholic comes from the greek katholikos which means universal. Was the early church universal…Yes it was! There was a common form of worship that if you read the church fathers was the mass.

The word Catholic comes from the Greek compound word katholokos, related to the Greek term katrholou (kathos + holos), which literally means “for the whole”.

catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9311def.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501fea4.asp

Here is a good link
ancient-future.net/catholicchurch.html

History lesson time.

In 538AD the last oposition to the Pope ended.

Seems to me you are providing quite a bit of opposition right now, daro!

During 538AD to 1798AD the common man was not allowed to own a Bible or manuscripts that Rome didn’t authorise. You weren’t allowed to read(if you were lucky enought to be able to read, the people were kept dumb on purpose by the church) a Bible in any language other than Latin and only priests were allowed. This is why this period was called the Dark Ages. You were not allowed to question the Pope’s authority. People were kept in line through fear not love.

I can see that you have been heavily influenced by reformed thinking, Daro. Has it occurred to you that, since there were no printing presses, that each set of scriptures had to be done by hand? these were done laboriously by monks with ink and parchment. They were of inestimable value, and the “common man” could not usually afford to read them. You are also correct that most people could not read. It was the Catholic Church that commissioned and completed the translation from the Latin. With as much honor as you afford the scriptures, I would think that you would understand how important it is for them to be protected!

 

[dessert]

Indeed,

But I think you and I share a minority opinion on this board.

Romans 8:38-39

38For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[a] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Not so fast, if we are going to share the pie let’s see if we are eating the same fruit.

What was He( God) carrying? In the poem footprints in the sand there were only one set sometimes and at times there were two. Why?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Interesting question that really needs a thread all of it’s own.

I had pondered this question.

I happen to watch the “The Nativity” this weekend.

God’s will was on the verge of being thwarted on a number of times. God had to send an Angel for some course corrections.

Joseph was on the verge of thwarting God’s plan so God sent an Angel to thwart Joseph’s plans.

The Magi were sent an Angel to thwart Herod’s plans which was on verge of thrwarting God’s plans.

And God sent an Angel to Joseph again to further thwart Herod’s plans.

And Paul was on the verge of thwarting God’s plans. So Jesus paid Paul a visit…

 

[CherryBomb]

Wow…if there is one thing i have learned about converts to catholicism is this : before becoming catholics they were vehemently anti-catholic !

Well, my husband and I weren’t really anti-catholic, but we were both pretty anti-Christianity in general. Although he always said if he became a Christian he’d be Catholic