Why do we need more than scripture?

[Incomplete]

Also this did not come up in the conversation but has in many other conversations: the Marian dogmas. They are difficult to justify as being part of the apostolic deposit of faith versus being innovations as they sound very superfluous to the gospel (this is coming from a former Protestant).

I have understood from other Protestants that this is, indeed, a difficult thing. I have not taken time to really look into them because I have accepted that God left us a way to know Truth, but I do know that there is some Biblical basis. I have also read of Protestants that said these were the thing that kept them away, but once they really looked into them, they realized the support these dogmas had.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I have brought that up before… he claimed that Ignatius wasn’t suggesting that the bishop himself had any special power to protect him from error but rather that he was pointing out that the bishop himself happened to be teaching correct doctrine. And as far as Ignatius’ comments on the Eucharist were concerned he told me that I was reading transubstantiation into the writings and that I was merely confused by the language. Not sure how else I could possibly interpret that passage…

Ignatius compares obedience to the bishop as obedience to Christ. Justin the martyr writes about the literal presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Irenaeus is the best church father before nicea to point to the necessity of bishops. He flatly declares that scripture is not enough. See his Against Heresies, specifically book 3, chp 3, if I remember correctly.

 

[jmeyer3131]

I have brought that up before… he claimed that Ignatius wasn’t suggesting that the bishop himself had any special power to protect him from error but rather that he was pointing out that the bishop himself happened to be teaching correct doctrine. And as far as Ignatius’ comments on the Eucharist were concerned he told me that I was reading transubstantiation into the writings and that I was merely confused by the language. Not sure how else I could possibly interpret that passage…

All of this points out the need for an infallible teaching body of God actually wanted us to know Truth. People don’t even agree on interpretations of Ignatius, much less Scripture. This is why we need more than Scripture!

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

If one is “Sola Scriptura”, Scripture is “whatever you need it to mean.”

The Bible clearly says that Jesus established the Church on Peter, that Peter was to be the
earthly head of that Church, and from that Catholicism has the line of succession of popes
going all the way back to Peter.

Then the Protestant comes along and says “No No, the Bible may
seem to allude to that idea, but it really doesn’t mean that,” based
on the Protestant’s OWN interpretation

So you have the Catholic saying one thing, the Protestant saying another, the
nondemoninational disagreeing with both and bringing up a new interpretation,
even cults will arise claiming a better understanding of Scripture, different from
any prior interpretation, you get 30,000 sects, at some point, Scripture is not
enough, but we need that Tradition which helped put together the Scriptures in
the first place, right?

Sola Scriptura people really put down the men who put the
Bible together, like “Thanks for all your service, but we now
have a Bible, we don’t need you guys anymore!”

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I very brief one sentence summary before I start: I am a convert to Catholicism from a devout Protestant family and my father is a Presbyterian minister.

I recently went on vacation to Washington state and my parents were there with me. I didn’t get any sleep on the last night we were there and I was in the hotel lobby by myself when my dad came down and started talking to me about religion. I wasn’t really in the mood for it but I did my best to indulge him. I went through the normal routine of explaining why I believed that the church was apostolic and that the deposit of faith of the church is the only reasonable standard for orthodoxy. He understood where I was coming from but the question I couldn’t apparently answer to his satisfaction was why do we need more than scripture. I told him that the New Testament is not comprehensive, it is not written in such a way that it expounds upon every facet of the Christian faith but is rather a set of accounts, letters and one vision. He said that oral tradition is not reliable because it can change so much as it is passed down through the generations. I said that the writings of the early fathers are evidence that in fact it did not change. However he brought up a point that is hard to argue, for example, the Catholic Church’s position on heretics, especially Protestants, appears to be very different at the council of Trent than it was at Vatican II. Also when I brought up the obvious failures of sola scriptura and the resulting 38,000 denominations, he was not convinced that these divisions are a necessary result of sola scriptura. He thinks that if the scripture is read systematically and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit then its true meaning can be derived. This is impossible to argue because it is so subjective. Anyways it is difficult to argue with protestants because they are so sincere and are able to make it sound as if their standard of sola scriptura is a very honest and reliable way of living a Christian life and that nothing more should be necessary.

Hi CompSciGuy,
The short answer is because Scripture and Tradition in the Church operating as a unity (STC) is the way God established to hand on His word.

Your answer in the form of a question should be: since for 1500 years in the Church East and West God’s word has handed by STC, what justification do you have for dropping STC and going to the Bible alone and then expect to have the fullness of what God revealed to humanity?

You might also point out that . . .
The New Testament authors, taken as a whole:
PORTRAY God’s word being transmitted by a process of scripture, tradition, and church;
ACKNOWLEDGE that the oral word (the Gospel preached orally by the apostles) is a sacred deposit/trust to be handed on by others orally as well as in writing;
ORDER us to follow unwritten traditions;
make no STATEMENT that all of the oral apostolic preaching was consigned to writing;
and give no explicit MANDATE and no self-referential statement making scripture the sole rule of faith thus abolishing the existing process of Scripture, tradition, and Church.

Over the years I have collected data from the NT showing this. I include it in the posts below.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

QUESTION: What is the complete method God has chosen to preserve and transmit down through time the whole of His word (revealed truth) that He wished humanity to have?
Is it: (a) through Scripture and apostolic tradition in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as understood by the RCC; or (b) sola scriptura as understood variously by Evangelicals?

Given that:

1. The apostles are our source of knowledge about the teaching, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus either as His witnesses (the Twelve) or an inspired teacher (Paul) [Lk 1:2; 24:48; Jn 15:27; 20:30; 21:24; Acts 1:3,21-22; 10:40-41; Gal 1:11-12; Eph 3:3].
2. Jesus told the twelve apostles to preach and teach [Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15; Lk 24:47; Acts 10:42]. The word of God was transmitted by the apostles orally first: the Gospel was carried by believers [Acts 2 esp. v 42; Acts 5:42; 6:4; 15:35; 18:11; 20:27; 1 Thes 2:13; 1 Tim 2:7; 1 Jn 1:2-3; 1 Pet 1:23,25]. The oral word is the entire reality and revealed content of the Christian faith including the correct interpretation of the Old Testament given by Christ and handed on interpersonally to and in the body of Christ by the apostles. This is the word of God / word of the Lord / the Gospel. (see texts above especially Acts).
3. The word spread orally [Acts 6:7; 12:24; 19:20; 1 Thes 1:8; 1 Tim 2:9; 2 Tim 1:13; Jude 17], and people came to the faith and were saved by the oral word [Jn 17:20; Acts 2:41; 4:4; 8:14; 11:1; 16:32-33; Rm 10:8-17; 1 Cor 4:15; 15:1-3; Eph 1:13; Col 1:5-6; 2:6-7; 1 Tim 6:12; 1 Pet 1:23-25; 1 Jn 2:24] which is a norm [Jn 12:50; 1 Cor 15:1-2; Gal 1:6-9; Col 1:23; 2 Tim 1:13].
4. The oral transmission of the word stemming from the apostles will not die out [1 Pet 1:23-25].
5. The apostles are, therefore, the foundation of the Church [Eph 2:20; Rev 21:14; also Acts 2:1-14,41-42,47; 5:41-42].
6. Not everything that Jesus or the apostles taught or did was written down in scripture [Jn 16:12-13; 20:30-31; 21:24-25; 1 Cor 11:34; Philip 4:9; 2 Jn 12; 3 Jn 13-14].
7. In three passages Paul expressly enjoins his readers to hold to the “tradition(s)” (paradosis) they have received before he wrote to them [1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thes 2:15; 3:6].
   In addition, the verb form, paradidomi, usually translated as “deliver” or “hand on,” is used in reference to transmitting the whole faith before the letters were written [Rm 6:17 teaching “delivered”; 2 Pet 2:21 commandment “delivered”; Jude 3 the faith “delivered”]. See also Philip 4:9.
8. Fellow workers and successors were appointed by the apostles over the flock [AA 14:23; 2 Tim 4:2-5; Titus 1:5-9; 2:1,15; cf. 1 Tim 5:19-21, 22]. Paul states that the Holy Spirit has appointed them overseers (AA 20:28). In Col 1:7 we learn that Epaphras, a fellow worker with Paul, founded the Church at Colossae.
9. The process of handing on the faith orally through successive generations of believers is acknowledged, affirmed, and ordered. [Rm 10:17; 1 Thes 1:8; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; 2 Cor 8:16-18; Col 1:6-8; Tit 1:9] The process pre-dates the letters and the content is not specified.
   [In connection with this Paul uses the noun *paratheke (a thing entrusted for safe keeping : a deposit : a trust) and the verb paratithemi (to entrust for safe keeping : to deposit). Paul entrusts to Timothy the charge to preach the Gospel (1 Tim 1:18) and reminds him to guard what has been entrusted to him (6:20); he repeats his injunction to guard the trust/deposit (2 Tim 1:14) as he himself has (1:12) and then further tells Timothy to entrust it to others so they can orally teach yet others (2:2). It is hard to imagine a more apt description of tradition.]
10. Jesus willed to establish a church (not claiming any particular church or denomination or leadership structure here: just a church) [Matt 16:18; 18:17].
11. Paul identifies the body of Christ as the church [Col 1:18, 24; Eph 1:22].
12. Jesus established only one church, one body of Christ–all local churches in NT are concrete expressions of the one church founded by Christ. (no claims here as to which church) [Eph 4:4; also 1 Cor 12:12]
13. It follows from the above and is expressly stated in Eph 3:10 that the oral apostolic word is made known through the Church.
14. The Church has the “Spirit of Truth” (Jn 16:13; cf 1 Cor 2:12; 2 Tim 1:14) and the “mind of Christ" (1 Cor 2:16). She is well-equipped to preserve the oral apostolic word.
15. The apostles and other NT authors did not write under inspiration as private individuals, but as members of the body of Christ for members of the body. (e.g., Paul’s letters are to churches already formed in person by him or others.)
16. The NT writings were read in the context of the oral preaching handed on and of the body/community receiving it, usually established by that apostle/writer [1-2 Cor; 1-2 Thes; Gal; 1 Jn are examples]. Apostolic Tradition and the Apostolic Church stemming from Pentecost has always been the native hermeneutic environment for the Scriptures.
17. No NT author teaches that everything taught by the apostles that God wanted humanity to have and transmit was written down. In fact, the NT suggests just the opposite.
18. No NT author teaches that the authoritative transmission of the oral apostolic word by the body of Christ was to cease after the NT canon was collected.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

1. Biblical authors do not portray or teach that the word of God is an exclusively written word or that the word of God is limited to, equivalent to, and coextensive with the written text of Scripture. [e.g., “God said, ‘Let there be . . .”; Ps 29—“the voice of the Lord”; Is 30:30-31—“voice”; Is 55:10-11—the word goes forth from God’s mouth; 1 Thes 1:8—the word of the Lord sounded forth; 1 Thes 2:13–what they received from Paul before the letter was written was the word of God, etc. Also #s 2-3, 6-9 above.] No biblical author teaches, if you will, that the pen is mightier than the word.
2. There is no text in the NT that makes the express, direct, and self-referential assertion that we must go solely by the Bible (the written word) to derive the whole of sound doctrine. e.g., “The complete set of truths that God wanted to give humanity are to be found by the individual or collective interpretation of the Bible alone.”
3. “Scripture(s)” in the NT with one exception (2 Pet 3:16) means the Old Testament (Jn 5:39, 13:18; 17:12; AA 18:24, 28; Rom 16:26; 1 Cor 15:3,4, Jas 2:23. Search under graphe. gramma is used in 2 Tim 5:13)
4. The canon of the NT is not listed in the NT. The canon of the OT is not listed in the text of the Bible.

I conclude, then:

1. The process of scripture, apostolic tradition (handing on the apostolic faith orally through social interaction), and church (in general, the body of Christ) involved together in handing on God’s word is present and operative in the NT. This is scripture, tradition, and church in their most basic sense, without getting into specific doctrines or denominations.
2. Further, --since the method operative in NT times to hand on God’s word authoritatively is scripture, apostolic tradition, and church together; --and NT authors acknowledge, affirm, and order this method; --and no biblical author orders the abolition of this method; --and no biblical author expressly states that all the content of the apostolic oral word God intended humanity to possess was consigned to writing; --and no biblical author teaches that the written word interpreted by the individual believer (including consultation with others) must be the sole rule of faith; therefore one would expect to see this process of handing on God’s word (scripture, apostolic tradition, and church) to continue after biblical times.
3. We in fact do find this process (scripture, apostolic tradition, and church) of handing on God’s word operative in the early Church after biblical times, and taught by the earliest church fathers some of whom knew the apostles. They, as members of the church, were conscious of transmitting the complete oral apostolic word throughout the world by this method.

The consistent use of Scripture and apostolic tradition in the Church to preserve and transmit the whole of God’s word (revealed truth) that He wished humanity to have down through time from the NT onward to the eve of the Reformation places the burden on Protestants to show why it is more reasonable to abandon STC as the method God chose in favor of the newer Reformation teaching, sola scriptura.

 

[hazcompat]

Fr of Jazz:thumbsup:

Peace

 

[MarcoPolo]

His response would be that there was a general understanding of what writings were inspired even in the early church before the scriptures were compiled, and that these were heavily meditated upon in the early church.

Then he believes in Sacred Tradition.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Then he believes in Sacred Tradition.

Touche.

 

[CompSciGuy]

Ignatius compares obedience to the bishop as obedience to Christ. Justin the martyr writes about the literal presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Irenaeus is the best church father before nicea to point to the necessity of bishops. He flatly declares that scripture is not enough. See his Against Heresies, specifically book 3, chp 3, if I remember correctly.

You know it’s ironic because Protestants will use that same book, Against Heresies, book 3 chapter 1 (against the Gnostics) as a defense of sola scriptura:

“When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce.”

However if you read only two chapters later, he points out the necessity for apostolic succession (since the heretics use the scriptures too):

“But, again, when we refer them to that Tradition which originates from the Apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of Priests in the Churches, they object to Tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the Priests, but even than the Apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. … It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition.” - AH, 3, 2, 2

“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the Tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the Apostles instituted Bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [Gnostic heretics] rave about.” - AH, 3, 3, 1

 

[JerryZ]

I like the imagery afforded that the Church (the Catholic Church) is like a ship and it is anchored to Jesus. He promised He would not leave it (His Church) and that the evil one would not prevail against Her.
Also it is worth mentioning that the Tradition of the Church has 2 folds. One it “achors” us to the true Faith. Second it is the record of all the heresies that She had to contend with from the very beginning.
We have had it all. Go into the anals of the Tradition and you will find all the OLD heresies repeated almost verbatim today.

Some reject the true presence, some the statues, some the divinity of Christ and on and on.
Of course sometimes we cannot see our own errors, we get so absorbed into our own ways, we cannot recognize the truth if it hit us with a 2x4 square in the face.
This is why we never should understimate the importance of our Church, it was a light tower left to us by Him, so that we would not stray too far from the narrow path.

We need to pray that all will see it’s light and recognize it for what it really is. A beacon from God.

–

 

[Darryl_B]

I very brief one sentence summary before I start: I am a convert to Catholicism from a devout Protestant family and my father is a Presbyterian minister.

I recently went on vacation to Washington state and my parents were there with me. I didn’t get any sleep on the last night we were there and I was in the hotel lobby by myself when my dad came down and started talking to me about religion. I wasn’t really in the mood for it but I did my best to indulge him. I went through the normal routine of explaining why I believed that the church was apostolic and that the deposit of faith of the church is the only reasonable standard for orthodoxy. He understood where I was coming from but the question I couldn’t apparently answer to his satisfaction was why do we need more than scripture. I told him that the New Testament is not comprehensive, it is not written in such a way that it expounds upon every facet of the Christian faith but is rather a set of accounts, letters and one vision. He said that oral tradition is not reliable because it can change so much as it is passed down through the generations. I said that the writings of the early fathers are evidence that in fact it did not change. However he brought up a point that is hard to argue, for example, the Catholic Church’s position on heretics, especially Protestants, appears to be very different at the council of Trent than it was at Vatican II. Also when I brought up the obvious failures of sola scriptura and the resulting 38,000 denominations, he was not convinced that these divisions are a necessary result of sola scriptura. He thinks that if the scripture is read systematically and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit then its true meaning can be derived. This is impossible to argue because it is so subjective. Anyways it is difficult to argue with protestants because they are so sincere and are able to make it sound as if their standard of sola scriptura is a very honest and reliable way of living a Christian life and that nothing more should be necessary.

I have mentioned this on another thread. Sola Scriptura is not enough by itself to produce 38000 denominations. You need to have Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides simultaneously.

If Sola Scriptura were in fact true, God would have made sure the printing press was invented prior to that moment that His Son took on the form of a servant.

I was raised in a church that taught Jesus Christ was just a special man, the Holy Spirit is just power possibly electricity, the human being has no soul, there is no devil just sin-flesh, hell is a metaphor, you will never see heaven, but live on the earth, and worst yet it was those “facts” that were going to save us. And we got that all from the Sola Scriptura model.

That is why I find the Sola Scriptura model not only incorrect, but very very dangerous.

 

[jritenour]

I can understand any father would be concerned for their son’s soul if he believes his son was in error. I don’t think it would matter what his faith was.

I won’t speak on Tradition vs Sola Scriptura as I think many others here who have responded have made a much better case than I have/can. But, here I believe is the heart of the matter in your case: From a Protestant’s point of view, he really should not be concerned for your soul unless you are practicing a works-based faith – which in my view Roman Catholicism is not. Think about this, our belief in the means of salvation is not much different than that of the Presbyterians (especially the more conservative branches: PCA or Orthodox Presbyterianism).

God calls us. We respond in faith (which is a gift from God). We are baptized/confirmed. We do good works because we belong to Him. It is good for us and helps to sanctify us! Apart from good works, our faith is dead. No Protestant can/should disagree with this. While He may look with favor on my attempts at good works, none of my good works will ever be counted for my own righteousness. I CANNOT earn my way into heaven.

Now, the means of grace we do differ on but from a Protestant’s view, I don’t believe that should matter.

• I am baptized/confirmed because I am responding to God’s grace (no Baptist can disagree here!).
• I take communion and believe in the real presence because I want to be with Jesus Christ who is God! No amount of Eucharistic adoration here will matter however if I have a dead faith. They may disagree with the Real Presence but again this should in no way cause them to sincerely believe we are idolators. We do not worship stones or sticks but when we believe what we experience is Christ? We go to our knees as they would do if they recognized Christ.
• We are certainly commanded to confess our sins to each other. But these are not forgiven if we are not truly penitent or do not have a desire that our bad habits, inclinations to sin be lifted from us. What Protestant can disagree with this?

A couple of other things do seem to bother our evangelical Christian brothers and sisters but they should not:

We venerate Mary, the Theotokos (and unashamedly so!), but we do not worship her. We have disagreements on certain aspects of her nature but again, as a Protestant, they should not judge any of us (according to their own theology).

We do not worship the Saints (and certainly we should not!). We ask the Saints for intercessory prayer. They are in heaven. Why can they not pray for us or hear our petitions? This should not be a problem for a Protestant really. Do they know for a fact that the Saints do not or choose not to hear us?

I was raised Roman Catholic (baptized and confirmed) but I do not have an issue with my own son if he makes the decision to become a Baptist, Presbyterian or Methodist. I believe he will be missing out on a lot of good things that our living God offers us but this would be his choice. I do not fear one bit for his soul as long as he knows there is a God: that God is just, He loves him and offers Himself freely to him and that if my son professes to be a Christian then he must be one.

Jesus answered him [Peter], “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” More than baptism, we MUST allow Jesus to serve us. If we do not cooperate with Him or make the effort to do so, then you get the idea.

So, in my humble opinion. We are different yet we are not so much as we think.

“There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions of people who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

I was deep into PCA Church. Almost all of them I met are holy and sincere Christians (more sincere and thoughtful than I ever was and probably even now). I am certain your dad is a great Christian. Assure him you are the same as much as you are able and he will be content to know all is well with you and your soul. Above all, allow the peace of Christ to abound between you and your family.

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, [love] is not pompous, it is not inflated,
it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

God bless you.

I will pray for you and your father.

 

[fallow_spirit]

In my opinion the best thing that can be said is that ultimately the Church used its Tradition to determine what true Scripture was. If the book didn’t agree with established teaching or doctrine then they were thrown out.

And despite what some might think the canonization of the Scriptures were not really all that clear cut. Sure comparatively there were not a lot of disagreements, but there were still plenty.

 

[Darryl_B]

In my opinion the best thing that can be said is that ultimately the Church used its Tradition to determine what true Scripture was. If the book didn’t agree with established teaching or doctrine then they were thrown out.

And despite what some might think the canonization of the Scriptures were not really all that clear cut. Sure comparatively there were not a lot of disagreements, but there were still plenty.

My friend, standing on the banks of the Tiber, I have one word for you “Jump”.

 

[Abu]

Christ wrote nothing and used quotes from the OT, as He established His Church and explicitly made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).

1. Never did Jesus command any of His Apostles to write anything, but to go and teach under the Primacy of St Peter.
2. It is only through His Church that we can have the Sacred Scriptures to mangle or to lead us to Christ’s Church.
3. The result of private interpretation has been tens of thousands of differing and confused “interpretations” among those outside of His Church.

Of course Christ established His Church, which defined what books are the inspired Word of God, no more nor less. Only She has the authority to interpret what She has given the world.

To whom else did Jesus give that supreme authority? The NT was written within a few decades of Christ’s death by Catholics and His Church told us what books form the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God and carefully copied them for 1500 years before Protestantism so they would be available for all. The books were declared, no more no less, by the Church, and no one else has any authority to add or subtract any.

 

[RCCB]

So that’s the real question at hand - has or has not God revealed through Sacred Tradition?

And that remains an open question that history has yet to resolve to the satisfaction of many, including myself. It seems highly unlikely that God would reveal anything that allows for two thousand years of theological dispute, division, schism and blood over the exact nature of that revelation. Not to mention three competing mono-theisms that at their core deny the validity of each other. And even without the question of interpretation, how can one presume that the scriptural record is even complete with new discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library and possibly more on the way. And there are many conflicting ideas contained within the new discoveries that beg hard questions. I can only wonder if theology is even a valid human intellectual endeavor. Does theology only exists because nothing has been revealed and is what history has handed down to us no more than a theological counterfeit, waiting for to be judged?

 

[MarcoPolo]

It seems highly unlikely that God would reveal anything that allows for two thousand years of theological dispute, division, schism and blood over the exact nature of that revelation.

On what basis do you assert the doctrine you claim above?

 

[Abu]

RCCB #37
It seems highly unlikely that God would reveal anything that allows for two thousand years of theological dispute, division, schism and blood over the exact nature of that revelation.

That supposition indicates the failure to realise that mankind has fallen from the created state through a free choice as possessing free-will, and thus due to Original Sin has corrupted his nature.

Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2; See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].

Not only are the facts of Jesus miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries, His miracles “were so frequent, the eyewitnesses so numerous, and the evidence so stark, that not even Christ’s enemies disputed the fact of their occurrence. Instead they ascribed them to the power of the devil, or defied Him to perform another one in His own favour.” (See Mt 12:24; 27:39-42; Jn 11:47). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, p 104].

The vast gulf between Catholicism and any other religion is that the Catholic Church has been founded by a Divine Person who lived with a human and divine nature and claimed to be God, proving that claim by His Resurrection and many recorded miracles. When God leads us through His Church, others fashion their own beliefs and morals. Certainty within the Church derives from objective historical facts; the testimony of the apostolic Church witnesses to the Christ-redemption from which came the New Testament.

The Catholic Church gradually built western civilization based on faith and reason – which is why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.