Why does any teaching have to be in scripture?

[Philthy]

"WatchfulPilgrim:

For that matter, the beginning of Luke says that these things are written that we **might “know **the certainty of those things” which they had been instructed in.

Uhhh, nooo, that’s not what it says. It is written to Theophilus so that HE might “realize the certainty of the teachings” he received. There is no extrapolation to “we” or us being certain of anything. There is no indication that Luke intended his letter to Theophilus to be shared with anyone, let alone become a part of Sacred Scripture.

Yet his letter was shared and considered Scripture.
So why would it not follow that these teachings (in Luke’s gospel) are not written so that WE may know with certainty?

Hmmm. Is this your “mea culpa” for misrepresenting (ie “that we might know”)what is actually said in the Scripture which you claim to hold in such high regard? The gospel of Luke simply doesnt make the claim that you attributed to it, and as such your point is self-refuting.
Why would it not follow??? Lots of things could follow but the accepting of Luke’s gospel as a message for ALL of us is something that is outside of Scripture per se; it is something that the Church - apart from Scripture - made happen.

I suppose the reader can deduce that what follows in Luke’s letter IS the teachings Luke refers to?

Yes, you would have to suppose that just like everything else you are claiming since none of it is actually stated in Scripture, which only goes to prove the point that a teaching doesn’t have to be in Scripture to be taught and held as true. Thank you for clearly proving the exact opposite of what you claimed to be proving.

Blessings!

 

[nickybr38]

Nickybr, I don’t mean to pick on you. I’m just using your responjse as an illustration. But the fact is that 99.9999999999999% of all things Christian are in the Bible. People don’t take the time to learn how to read Scripture properly. Lectio divina, meditation and prayerfully reading scripture is hardly practiced. I know very few Catholics who actually read scripture daily, let alone on a regular basis. And saying, “Well, we hear it in Mass” isn’t good enough. People didn’t have the sports pages and TV competing with that back in the early Church. We can’t read USA Today every day and have TV in our face and then claim that 15 minutes of Scripture read to us in Mass is enough. Again, most of what people think is not in the Bible actually is and much of it plainly stated.

• Where in the Bible does it say that Mary is the Mother of all Christians and the queen of heaven? Revelation 12, plain as the nose on your face. It’s right there.
• Where is purgatory? In Matthew 12:32 Jesus speaks of forgiveness in an age to come and in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, Paul speaks about suffering loss as through fire yet being saved. Think about that… you don’t suffere loss in heaven and you can’t be saved in hell. This passage is complete nonsense in a Heaven and Hell only theology and when presented to a non-Catholic in response to a question about Purgatory, they generally go speechless.
• The Trinity? John 14 is a sublime statement about the Trinity. It’s right there. Jesus says “I am the Truth” in verse 6 and then says that the Father will give us the “Spirit of Truth” in verse 17. He then goes on to say that he and the Father are one. BAM! The Trinity. Right there in John 14.

These are just three examples and personally, I love it when people ask “Where is that in the Bible?” Too many Catholics are quite simply ignorant of Scripture (Yea, I said that) and too willing to dismiss these types of questions by saying “Not everything Christian is in the Bible”. The fact is that an incredible amount is in the Bible and much of that is very clearly stated.

Maybe it’s because I live in the deep south. Everyone carries a Bible here and you can’t walk into a coffee shop without walking into a Bible study. Here in the south, ignorance of scripture is a non-denominational Evangelical waiting to happen.

-Tim-

Oh, I think Scripture is wonderful. However, I think we need to humble ourselves a bit too. Instead of constantly demanding the Church prove it’s position perhaps it’s time we respect authority… but that’s just my opinion.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Dear Pilgrim
You have identified yourself as a former Catholic and as a mennonite. Perhaps you should change your self identification to indicate your actual situation? Just a suggestion. In my understanding of Mennonite faith, I see that you have a couple main divergent points: The most important distinction is that Mennonites do not believe in the true presences of the body, blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of The Holy Eucharist. This is the source and summit of the Catholic faith. Another divergent point is that they do not believe in infant baptism. The original divergence from the Catholic faith was through a heretical Catholic priest back in the early 1500s. Your focus on Bible teachings is admirable, however you must continue to persevere in your quest for the truth, the whole truth which can only be found in the Catholic Church. The full deposit of faith is held in the one true church. I suspect your relationship with this heretical sect came about through lonliness and a longing to belong. the Mennonites are a tightly knit sect who rely on the technique known as “shunning” to keep members inside their community. In other words, if you doubt or leave, you have cut yourself off from all your friends and relationships, too. To me this seems like emotional blackmail. Not very Christlike. I applaud your efforts to continue to seek the truth and apologize if I upset you. But do consider changing your stated religion to something more appropriate? God Bless you and keep you on the path.

To be honest, I was not satisfied with that description either, and my position is not easy to explain in one, short line. I looked for some way to write a little paragraph explaining more fully, but I could not find one - either b/c there is nothing available, or I just don’t know where to find it (very likely…). A lot has changed on this boards since I last participated here…

In short - I don’t quite fit in in Catholicism, neither do I quite fit in with the Mennonites, but I find the Catholic position about my position to be more forgiving than the Mennonite one about the Catholic position. So I feel like I am with more like-minded individuals right now, and feel safe-enough in my present indecisiveness as a “separated brethren” - I am following my convictions and not making a commitment either way.

I was once Catholic. I am probably more Mennonite in my doctrinal convictions than I am a Catholic. I do believe that I am more what I envision true Catholicism to be now (as a Mennonite) than I was then, as a professing Catholic. Iow, I think the CC has changed a lot in time, and this is more in keeping with what I have always considered to be the essence of the true faith: simplicity, detachment, radical dicipleship, non-resistance… And that hardly says it all. It would take a novel to try to explain what I see where I am right now, but I can’t stay between the two - I need to make a decision.

The thing that holds me back most (from making a Mennonite commitment) is my lingering love for the Eucharist. I cannot say that it is not with the CC says it is. Yet, the Mennonites, though they do not believe it is what the CC claims, treat it more as if it truly were Christ, than most professing Catholics do. Knowing that Jesus looks more upon the heart than upon flawed, human reasoning, I wonder if the Mennonite attitude is more admirable to God, than the lukewarmness that He is often met with in the Catholic Eucharist.

Btw, this group does not shun people. They are the most godly, charitable and forgiving people I have ever met. I have only ever read of people like this, like St. Therese, Francis, etc… And those saints may have believed in Catholic things that the Mennonites did not, but often they were denied (by the CC…) those things, and still grew in holiness. I do not believe that holiness is limited to the walls of the CC.

I hope I didn’t offend you either, Sherry. I still love many things Catholic. Non-C’s are missing out on the communion of saints, devotion to Mary, and possibly the Eucharist (I do wonder if they are still blessed, in their reverence for communion, as much, or even more so, than those who profess to believe in the RP, but do not respect it…).

Peace~

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

To be honest, I was not satisfied with that description either, and my position is not easy to explain in one, short line. I looked for some way to write a little paragraph explaining more fully, but I could not find one - either b/c there is nothing available, or I just don’t know where to find it (very likely…). A lot has changed on this boards since I last participated here…

In short - I don’t quite fit in in Catholicism, neither do I quite fit in with the Mennonites, but I find the Catholic position about my position to be more forgiving than the Mennonite one about the Catholic position. So I feel like I am with more like-minded individuals right now, and feel safe-enough in my present indecisiveness as a “separated brethren” - I am following my convictions and not making a commitment either way.

I was once Catholic. I am probably more Mennonite in my doctrinal convictions than I am a Catholic. I do believe that I am more what I envision true Catholicism to be now (as a Mennonite) than I was then, as a professing Catholic. Iow, I think the CC has changed a lot in time, and this is more in keeping with what I have always considered to be the essence of the true faith: simplicity, detachment, radical dicipleship, non-resistance… And that hardly says it all. It would take a novel to try to explain what I see where I am right now, but I can’t stay between the two - I need to make a decision.

The thing that holds me back most (from making a Mennonite commitment) is my lingering love for the Eucharist. I cannot say that it is not with the CC says it is. Yet, the Mennonites, though they do not believe it is what the CC claims, treat it more as if it truly were Christ, than most professing Catholics do. Knowing that Jesus looks more upon the heart than upon flawed, human reasoning, I wonder if the Mennonite attitude is more admirable to God, than the lukewarmness that He is often met with in the Catholic Eucharist.

Btw, this group does not shun people. They are the most godly, charitable and forgiving people I have ever met. I have only ever read of people like this, like St. Therese, Francis, etc… And those saints may have believed in Catholic things that the Mennonites did not, but often they were denied (by the CC…) those things, and still grew in holiness. I do not believe that holiness is limited to the walls of the CC.

I hope I didn’t offend you either, Sherry. I still love many things Catholic. Non-C’s are missing out on the communion of saints, devotion to Mary, and possibly the Eucharist (I do wonder if they are still blessed, in their reverence for communion, as much, or even more so, than those who profess to believe in the RP, but do not respect it…).

Peace~

Another thing I just thought of…

You said I may have done this b/c I was lonely. Actually, I think I liked being alone as a Catholic. Sometimes being in a community like this is difficult. I think of what many of the saints encountered in the communal life. But looking at the early church, they were communal. This seems more like what God intended. I tried finding a Catholic community - the Carmelites, Franciscans and others… I found them to have more of the same problems encountered in non-Christian society… all the politics and selfishness… Maybe the Mennonites are like the order I always hoped to find in Catholicism. I don’t find the same worldliness there as I have found in the Catholic circles. And that might sound judgemental, or weak… I will admit it is probably my own weakness that leads me this way. I have a lot of sin to separate from, and I adore the Mennonite carefulness b/c I really do need to be careful about so many things or I will surely end up where I was before I became a real believer and follower of Christ.

 

[Muze]

I keep on reading this question, “Where is that in scripture?”

Where does God say that all teachings have to be in scripture, or even that any teaching has to be in scripture?
Who made up this teaching???

Peter did. Read 2 Peter 1. Peter is writing to protect the church from an era when the apostles will be dead, and the Church will have to find a way to hold to the truth.

And the only thing Peter offers to the Church is the writings of those who have seen Christ’s glory. No “apostolic succession”, no magesterium, no Sacred Tradition. Just the writings of those who saw Christ’s glory.

 

[Glennonite]

Wasn’t the purpose of writing the Scriptures so that we would know the “all things” that were entrusted to the Apostles? Don’t even the ECFs say that the church ought not go beyond that which is contained in the Holy Scriptures?

How does modern man determine what are the original, apostolic teachings if they cannot be found in the writings of the Scriptures?

Say, Watchful Pilgram; can I ask about your tagline:

"5 years of association with the Conservative Mennonite Church while my heart still burns beside the Eucharistic tabernacle…" ?

I’m intrigued; I find the Eucharist (Real Presence) the greatest aspect of Catholicism that I cannot do without. I infer that you put great value on it as well. If so, what keeps you from the Catholic faith in favor of the Mennonite faith?

I only ask because of curiousity, and do not mean any offense. For me, the Eucharist is like the parable of the man who sells all he has to buy the field which contained the treasure.

Thanks,

Glennonite

 

[Glennonite]

Remember that Jesus said salvation comes from believing what the apostles preached and taught…
…Where in the world do these people come up with the idea that all teachings MUST be in scripture or that any teaching MUST be in scripture. Where did God say that?

dcdurel:

Well-said. All of it.

Glennonite

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Say, Watchful Pilgram; can I ask about your tagline:

"5 years of association with the Conservative Mennonite Church while my heart still burns beside the Eucharistic tabernacle…" ?

I’m intrigued; I find the Eucharist (Real Presence) the greatest aspect of Catholicism that I cannot do without. I infer that you put great value on it as well. If so, what keeps you from the Catholic faith in favor of the Mennonite faith?

I only ask because of curiousity, and do not mean any offense. For me, the Eucharist is like the parable of the man who sells all he has to buy the field which contained the treasure.

Thanks,

Glennonite

Hi Glennonite,

Please see my post #43. It’s not something you can put in a tagline and I’m not sure where I could put it. Maybe I’ll just need to get rid of that signature.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Btw, I know I didn’t reply to a few posts - I am still mulling them over.
Thanks~

 

[Della]

The Bible doesn’t have to explicitly state any doctrine/dogma for it to be true. The truths taught by the Church must not contradict anything in Sacred Tradition, including the Bible. So, the real question is: Do any of the teachings of the Church contradict Holy Scripture? And the answer is: No they don’t.

I think some of us are laboring under a misunderstanding here. The Scriptures are NOT proof texts for doctrines/dogmas. They weren’t written to be that nor did the authors of its many writings intend that it should be used for that. What the Scriptures tell us is what God has inspired various men to write in their time and place that the Church has employed as a witness to the truths passed on to it by Christ.

The Scriptures were compiled, not mainly for scholarly study or meditation or to confirm the Church’s teachings, although they do all those things. It was compiled to be read in the Church’s liturgies, such as the Mass and the prayers of the Church–which is what the whole of the Liturgy of the Hours are.

Okay, so moving on from there, why do we consult the Bible when discussing doctrine/dogma? Because it is the written word of God, which is a part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Do the Scriptures tell us everything we need to know for salvation? Yes, they do. Does that mean, though that the Scriptures alone are all we need to understand all that God wishes us to know? No, it doesn’t. As the Church grows in its understanding of the teachings of Christ, it develops doctrine and dogma to follow suit. The criteria, as I wrote in my first paragraph, isn’t “can it be found in the Bible?” but “does it contradict Sacred Tradition?”, of which the Bible is a large part.

 

[Glennonite]

Hi Glennonite,

Please see my post #43. It’s not something you can put in a tagline and I’m not sure where I could put it. Maybe I’ll just need to get rid of that signature.

Thanks; I just read it after I posted to you. I get it. The journey we take in faith is exciting, isn’t it? I’ve personally “peaked” into almost every religion/philosophy on the planet. There’s a lot of good in each…well, most.

Alas, I have found my way back to where I was born, Mother Church. Good hunting, WP.

Glennonite

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Thanks; I just read it after I posted to you. I get it. The journey we take in faith is exciting, isn’t it? I’ve personally “peaked” into almost every religion/philosophy on the planet. There’s a lot of good in each…well, most.

Alas, I have found my way back to where I was born, Mother Church. Good hunting, WP.

Glennonite

Yes, it is exciting and sometimes frustrating. One of these places needs to be my home, or hospital, or cafeteria… maybe a little of each, lol… . Otherwise I will forever be a Cathennonite.

 

[Philthy]

Btw, I know I didn’t reply to a few posts - I am still mulling them over.
Thanks~

Thanks for being so considerate!

 

[nickybr38]

The Bible doesn’t have to explicitly state any doctrine/dogma for it to be true. The truths taught by the Church must not contradict anything in Sacred Tradition, including the Bible. So, the real question is: Do any of the teachings of the Church contradict Holy Scripture? And the answer is: No they don’t.

I think some of us are laboring under a misunderstanding here. The Scriptures are NOT proof texts for doctrines/dogmas. They weren’t written to be that nor did the authors of its many writings intend that it should be used for that. What the Scriptures tell us is what God has inspired various men to write in their time and place that the Church has employed as a witness to the truths passed on to it by Christ.

The Scriptures were compiled, not mainly for scholarly study or meditation or to confirm the Church’s teachings, although they do all those things. It was compiled to be read in the Church’s liturgies, such as the Mass and the prayers of the Church–which is what the whole of the Liturgy of the Hours are.

Okay, so moving on from there, why do we consult the Bible when discussing doctrine/dogma? Because it is the written word of God, which is a part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church. Do the Scriptures tell us everything we need to know for salvation? Yes, they do. Does that mean, though that the Scriptures alone are all we need to understand all that God wishes us to know? No, it doesn’t. As the Church grows in its understanding of the teachings of Christ, it develops doctrine and dogma to follow suit. The criteria, as I wrote in my first paragraph, isn’t “can it be found in the Bible?” but “does it contradict Sacred Tradition?”, of which the Bible is a large part.

Great post!