Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

[Patavium]

Kathleen,

Ireaneus said plainly he was sola scriptura. I dont know how you could miss that.

No, He was not!, Why must you believe that a Catholic (yes, a Catholic) is Sola scriptura?

But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth

 

[JaKael02]

And hopefully that will help submariner and other Protestants here see that you guys represent, in many ways, a sectarian version of Catholicism, and they will stop judging Catholicism based on the opinions expressed on this forum.

Edwin

Hey Contarini,

I noticed your a forum master. Meaning you been around the block a time or two on this forum. That intrigues me and leads me to ask you…

If Pope makes that vehicle for Episcopalians to become Catholic in USA are you going to do that? Or are you set in your denomination? (I’m just curious)

Thank you, kindly - James

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Asked this question today to a fundamentalist up in the apologetics playground. He is trying to disprove a Catholic teaching by using the “neutral source” of the Bible.
I thought I would ask both Catholics and non-Catholics this simple quesion.
It begins with the premise of course that the Catholic Church put together the Bible we have.
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

In other words you used a circular argument .

 

[JustaServant]

In other words you used a circular argument .

It is circular only to the fundamentalist.

1. The Catholic Church put together the books of the Bible.
2. The fundamentalist comes along and claims that using the Scripture alone (a concept not found in any of the books of the Bible), he can refute Catholic doctrine, theology, traditition and practice.

The question remains:
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

You are making a huge assumption here. Yes the Christian Church, which at the time was “catholic” meaning universal put together the Bible. But to then identify that fairly unified entity with the Roman Catholic Church in the 21st century is to engage in historical folly.

Simply put, much of the Catholic Church’s doctrine was developed long after the Bible, especially the New Testament was canonized. All the doctrines and theological disputes of the following 1700 years were yet to happen. The church had only recently become established.

You need to step back from your belief based doctrine of history into a neutral examination of what really happened. I advise my Muslim friends to do the same.

Your question reminds me of the silliness of “is God so powerful he could make a rock that he could not lift?”

Asked this question today to a fundamentalist up in the apologetics playground. He is trying to disprove a Catholic teaching by using the “neutral source” of the Bible.
I thought I would ask both Catholics and non-Catholics this simple quesion.
It begins with the premise of course that the Catholic Church put together the Bible we have.
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

I am sad to say this, but your question does no justice whatever to the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church which all Christians are heirs to. It is embarrassing.

It is circular only to the fundamentalist.

1. The Catholic Church put together the books of the Bible.
2. The fundamentalist comes along and claims that using the Scripture alone (a concept not found in any of the books of the Bible), he can refute Catholic doctrine, theology, traditition and practice.

The question remains:
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

 

[submariner2]

Patavium:
patavium,

Here is Ireneaus on that issue.

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the
will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the
ground and pillar of our faith.” (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, Book III Ch.1)

Of course he also believed in tradition. Scripture was the tradition of the apostles written down for us. Other traditions also enter into it but his belief is plain here. that scripture contains by itself “the plan of our salvation.” He says we learn that from none others. He says it is the “ground and pillar of our faith” because it contains the words of Christ and the apostles. What else compares?

Rob

Rob

 

[zz912]

patavium,

Here is Ireneaus on that issue.

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the
will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the
ground and pillar of our faith.” (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, Book III Ch.1)

Of course he also believed in tradition. Scripture was the tradition of the apostles written down for us. Other traditions also enter into it but his belief is plain here. that scripture contains by itself “the plan of our salvation.” He says we learn that from none others. He says it is the “ground and pillar of our faith” because it contains the words of Christ and the apostles. What else compares?

Rob

Rob

You’re reading your own opinion into that quote. And you have to ignore many other writings of his that DIRECTLY and EXPLICITLY contradict your interpretation of what he wrote.

 

[Patavium]

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed perfect knowledge, as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book III Ch.1

 

[KathleenGee]

St Ireneaus firmly believed in the Eucharist and condemned those who did not.

And you cannot have the Eucharist without the priesthood.

And you can’t have the Bible alone without Christ’s Church…that is being the Lone Ranger…the opposite of what we are called to become as Church.

 

[Contarini]

Hey Contarini,

I noticed your a forum master. Meaning you been around the block a time or two on this forum. That intrigues me and leads me to ask you…

If Pope makes that vehicle for Episcopalians to become Catholic in USA are you going to do that? Or are you set in your denomination? (I’m just curious)

Thank you, kindly - James

The Pope has already made the “vehicle,” and the Ordinary is Bishop Jeffrey Steenson, someone my own bishop (Ed Little) deeply respects.

However, my difficulties in leaving my present community for the Roman Communion are not, practically speaking, solved by the establishment of the Ordinariate. And in fact I have some ecclesiological misgivings about the establishment of yet another little “ghetto” group within the Roman Communion as a form of reunion.

As I understand the matter in light of Scripture and Tradition, unity of the Church means three things, basically:

1. Union of Christians in a particular place around one Eucharist presided over by one bishop (or by a presbyter delegated by the bishop);
2. Union of the bishops around the world with each other (for which the See of Rome is the historic focus, carrying on historically the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus); and
3. Union of the bishops living now with all their predecessors back to the apostles, through apostolic succession.

The Roman Communion is very strong on those two latter points, but it seems to me that St. Ignatius’ understanding of unity has been compromised in various ways. The local Catholic community in my town, for instance, is divided into two parishes, originally along ethnic lines (Germans vs. Irish). The two parishes are a couple of blocks apart. And, of course, each of them offers multiple Masses on Saturday evening and Sunday, resulting in something that falls far short of the union of all Christians in one place around one altar.

So looking at my present situation, I participate in disunity in three ways:

1. I attend one particular, very small congregation, while most of the Christians in my neighborhood attend other churches, including the two Catholic parishes aforesaid (which are both just down the road from me, with my Episcopal parish church about half way in between my house and the Catholic churches).
2. My bishop is not in communion with Rome, or indeed with most of the bishops around the world (those in the Roman Communion and those in the Eastern Communions–not to mention the breakaway Anglican groups in this country or the emerging split among worldwide Anglicans, which may conceivably turn out to be a threeway split). and
3. My bishop’s link with the apostles is perhaps a bit shaky due to the Reformation (Rome says it’s invalid, but I’m not so sure–certainly there is some ground for question, though).

Now suppose an Ordinariate parish were to be established in my town–suppose I found enough Anglicans in my town to form one, for instance (I’d probably have to be the organizer, in fact), and a priest to serve us. That would solve the second and third issues, but it would make the first worse than it is already. Christians in my town would be even more divided.

Why would I want to do that?

No, if I become Catholic I will try to do it in a way that increases Christian unity and doesn’t diminish it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

patavium,

Here is Ireneaus on that issue.

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the
will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the
ground and pillar of our faith.” (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, Book III Ch.1)

Of course he also believed in tradition. Scripture was the tradition of the apostles written down for us. Other traditions also enter into it but his belief is plain here. that scripture contains by itself “the plan of our salvation.” He says we learn that from none others.

than from the Apostles. He never says we learn apostolic teaching in no way than from Scripture.

He says it is the “ground and pillar of our faith”

No, he says that the Gospel is, and that the Gospel is handed down in Scripture. He does not say that this is the only way it is handed down. Nor does he even hint at the possibility that the successors of the apostles, taken as a whole, might corrupt the Gospel, which is the truly controversial part of sola scriptura.

because it contains the words of Christ and the apostles. What else compares?

The living transmission of the tradition, which Irenaeus does not exclude–in fact he refers to it on several occasions.

You are simply wrong in saying that he clearly upholds sola scriptura. The most you can claim is that his view of tradition does not clearly contradict sola scriptura–but that really reduces sola scriptura to “material sufficiency,” which is not the church-dividing part of sola scriptura (some Catholics believe in it, some don’t–it’s a matter of theological opinion).

Edwin

 

[KathleenGee]

The handing down of Scriptures, again, is the work of the Holy Spirit moving in the ecclesia, men.

The fact remains that the Church in its basic form was set up by 100 AD, the form that would endure the gates of hell.

Let’s say there is one Catholic believer in the diocese of Spokane, all having left or died. Because there is one believer left in Spokane, the Church exists.

It cannot provide the sacraments but the fullness of belief in the sacraments and creed and Scripture is there.

And most people in the world could not read and were not able to read, in spite of the printing press, until recent times. Can you blame that on the Catholic Church?

The problem was interpreting Scripture privately…and then breaking away.

We live in a highly individualized society and you find the most fragmented Christianity, and misdirected, here in this country. Subsequently, we are morally falling as a nation.

Bless you to all whose desire is to work for authentic Christian unity— meaning we can come together in faith. Catholics and Protestants both ‘walk in the Spirit’, but I think the biggest difference is in how we worship, and of course as noted, our Church authority.

You have to go back to how people lived faith out in context of the Apostles and Early Church fathers, integrated in faith with them, not the Apostles and Early Church Fathers isolated and separated and set out by Protestants to attempt to disprove their sacred unity and intent in communion with the lay believers. That is the passing down of tradition of faith…how we are to believe and practice…in the Holy Spirit…from the Apostles.

St. Justin the Martyr describes the Mass to a Roman Emperor in 155 AD, whose description of it was the essential practice throughout the ancient Christian world, whose parts, spirit and tone is practiced today…that is the tradition of worship…still going on…and the liturgy is the form that is most pleasing to God, because it is the Covenant of the Blood, the atonement for sin, in the Sacrificial Lamb.

 

[Phyllo]

I think that part of the reason we see so many “sola” arguments on this site during May and June is that its graduation time for the Evangelical Bible College diploma mills, and the new graduates “filled with the Holy Spirit” are going to demolish Catholicism and the 'Whore of Rome".

They are going to try at any rate. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it

 

[GLam8833]

…Bless you to all whose desire is to work for authentic Christian unity— meaning we can come together in faith. Catholics and Protestants both ‘walk in the Spirit’, but I think the biggest difference is in how we worship, and of course as noted, our Church authority…

I wish to comment that Ancient Israel’s and Judah’s Kingdoms were both
God’s people!!! Just as Protestants and Catholics are today, you can
then extend the analogy further by noting that Judah retained the
correct worship of God while Israel strayed, Just as the Catholics
retained the true worship of God while protestants strayed, but
God still blessed them.

Check out my member’s profile and get a hold of some good
catholic christian music!

 

[KathleenGee]

Glam…

Agree.

Forever Grace, thank you for your kind words…after all, the essence of God is charity…

I think many here have the intent of charity. It comes through to me…just that I pull back when someone comes on with a new post…with alot of attitude that we Catholics are not Christian.

I don’t use bible quote against bible quote…for me, it is misuse, and you will end up no where because somebody does not believe in the Church.

Just as it takes an act of faith in grace to accept Christ as the Son of God, Savior and Redeemer of the world, likewise it takes an act of faith through grace to accept the Catholic/Orthodox church as indeed Christ’s church.

But where people get mixed up, is the nature and mission of the Church. We put false expectations on the Church, especially its clerics…or especially those ecclesiastics who are afraid of the opinion of men and do not discipline or rebuke anti-Christian movements or beliefs that are always springing up within the universal church. We have no peace or rest from scandal and never will.

 

[KathleenGee]

About nature and mission of the Church and whether or not non-Catholics will go to hell, and Catholics are saved.

The nature of the Church is that it is primarily mystery. And the mystery part comes from the truth that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ and is sustained by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Holy Spirit…to bring us into full communion with the Heavenly Father.

The Church exists not for us, but we for the Church to nurture us in the Word of God and Sacraments, again, so we can enter into communion and eternal life, now.

If you ponder whether or not to enter the Catholic Church because of its popes, or ecclesiastics, or laity – or you do not want to be Catholic because of them, you are not looking at the real intent of the Church, Jesus Christ.

If I spend my time looking at the pope, the bishop, the local parish pastor…I am setting myself up for loss of faith and failure.

You come to the Catholic Church to enter into the life of Christ, not men.

You do not look at the Church as a man/woman but as a soul seeking the truth of Who God is and what He teaches, the life He brings me, and the direction and consolation He gives me.

The pope, bishop, priest are simply instruments that bring us the life of Christ and explain Truth to us in the context of times we are living in…through the Holy Spirit.

A devout Catholic knows right away, in the Holy Spirit, when a pope, bishop or priest or religious is ‘off’…and each one of us in our trials in this life must turn to the Mass, our devotions of Eucharist Adoration and the rosary, the companionship of Mary who helps us keep focused…in enduring difficult periods in the Church.

So essentially, it is not about us for us, but rather the fullness of truth and life of Jesus Christ, the atonement for sin, foundation of faith built on His life, death, and resurrection.

Baptism does not focus on which denomination you are in.

Baptism and its purifying and redeeming waters, incorporate us into the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ – not into any church or ecclesial community of men.

Baptism is essentially a Catholic rite and when you are baptized, you are incorporated into the mystical, universal, yes – Catholic Church.

That is why at Mass we pray for our separated brethren and pray for their return to us.

The diocese is your local church. The bishop oversees and prays for all the members of his local church and all those living in his diocesan boundaries…meaning non-Catholics. He is responsible for every living mortal in his diocese.

The bishop reports to the Holy Father. We have episcopal councils, similiar to ancient conciliar councils…but in modern times in difficulties…some bishops have admitted they vote differently in a council vs when they are reporting directly to Rome.

The Vatican does not have a spy sattelite or use drones or have spies planted every where watching every bishop’s and lay members’ moves.

The Vatican is not monitoring, day by day, the events and happenings of every bishop in every diocese throughout the world.

The Vatican does not know what is going on(meaning trouble in all its forms) in a diocese unless there are reports coming in from a specific diocese, and then it takes alot of time to assemble the reports and get them to appropriate offices for response…That means things go very very slowly in the Vatican…several years before a report is acknowledged and acted upon!

The cardinals work with the Holy Father. They wear red to symbolize their role to lay down their lives and shed blood in defense of the Holy Father, and a pope is normally chosen from their pool of candidates. And yes, it can get political among them to discern who would make a good pope for the times.

About Truth…there are degrees of truth. First truth…as we have been discussing here on this thread is that the Church is the authentic and sole interpreter of Sacred Scriptures, and using the quote given here in this thread, St. Ireneaus gives good reason…from the witness of the Holy Apostles. So-- the first degree of truth is found in the Church herself — the Councils.

The second degree of truth is the universal catechism that defines, articulates, and gives context to Sacred Scripture and our beliefs all based on man, his relationship with God, salvation, morality, sacraments, and prayer.

Sacred Scripture parallels tradition…it is to be understood in context of its authors, their times they lived in, what is literal, what is metaphor, and allegorical…but in Catholicism, again Context – is how we understand Scripture…as well as events in the Church.

Every phrase in Sacred Scripture is connected to each other, and it reflects salvation history of man encountering God, and fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Word Made Flesh.

Sola Scriptura is not a good definition in this context.

Jesus Christ IS the Word of God, Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word, Jesus Christ is the Word Made flesh, His Word incarnated in the Eucharist…Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist, are our sources of life…

So we as Catholics must keep our focus always on Jesus Christ and atonement with the Holy Spirit.

About papal infallibility, Contarini brought up good takes from Fr Avery Dulles…he was reacting to the papacy of Pope Eugenie Pacelli, who is becoming one of my favorites, who pretty much was the sole voice of the Church during WWII and thereafter.

There are degrees of papal infallibility in encyclicals…infallibility in conjunction with the faith of all bishops united to him --again the reflection of our experience and meaning and identity of being in communion with the Lord as Church – and not all encyclicals carry the same weight. One time Pope Paul VI wrote an encyclical that all seminaries teach in Latin. It was ignored.

The cardinal who heads the Congregation of Faith (Orthodoxy) can share with the Holy Father infalllibilty by making a definitive pronouncement…this came about in December, 1994 or 95 when Cardinal Ratzinger made a definitive statement that women cannot ordained with Holy Orders.

So it is very complex…and only the Holy Spirit guides us in all of it…our local bishop’s duty is to teach us any new directive that comes ‘from above’ with our pastors and their assistants…

But the Church goes on…and it will continue to do so irregardless.

I forgot to mention the Council of Trent also further put up more checks and balances with the papacy by having the pope utilize a wider pool of advisors than before. It also simply reaffirmed, —after pondering the issues of the Books of Scripture that were brought up by the Protestants, that indeed the Church was correct in its ancient choices of books of Scripture.

And Yes, Dzhereimi is most accurate in his past post…it was mainly the Eastern Church that compiled the books of Scripture…but we were one universal church then…and hope it is restored as well…

Catholics and Protestants walk alike in the Holy Spirit, we have to hold on to that and not just talk, but be in relationship with one another.

Sacred Communion of all Christians…not just talk or being nice…is the only witness to the world for Christ.

Jesus prayed that we would be one at the Last Supper…so the world would believe.

 

[KathleenGee]

And to finish on whether or not non-Catholics go to hell…

You have to go back to the times of the great dismantling of Christian unity at the Reformation. I have read some terrible writings, of likewise bad behaviors…of both sides…and would not see such behavior worthy of the kingdom of Christ.

The Church can only propose…but it never takes the place of God, and only God will judge who enters the kingdom or not.

The Council of Florence was more political and an attempt to rein in forthcoming splits and divisions, but at that time there was so much in issue regarding culture, geography, temporal governments, spiritual movements, that impacted faith just as we are now seeing in our times, with the great apostasy and falling away from faith in God Himself.

Prior to that, the Church ecclesiastics were in great need of reform…and what happened was probably meant to be, and I have also read that this chastisement of the Reformation was more a punishment for Catholics than anything for the Protestants.

Today in parish gatherings it always comes up about the split and dismantling…and we are feeling alot of pain when discussing it and want to be reunited.

Anyone who loves Christ and follows the Word of God is on the road to heaven, including those of the same spirit who do not know Christ but live by truth as they know it and in how they treat their neighbor. And I believe this mystery was alive and well among the hearts of many faithful prior to Vatican II.

I just don’t see other churches and denominations offering the fullness of communion as the Catholic Church does, in spite of all its internal scandals. I have to keep my eyes on Christ and the fullness of Him the Church, inspite of itself, provides.

 

[Nicea325]

patavium,

Here is Ireneaus on that issue.

“We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the
will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the
ground and pillar of our faith.” (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, Book III Ch.1)

Of course he also believed in tradition. Scripture was the tradition of the apostles written down for us. Other traditions also enter into it but his belief is plain here. that scripture contains by itself “the plan of our salvation.” He says we learn that from none others. He says it is the “ground and pillar of our faith” because it contains the words of Christ and the apostles. What else compares?

Rob

Rob

Sorry,but you have taken the quote way of out of context. Many Protestants love to find a quote mentioning “scripture” by the ECF’s and try to use to it as a smoking gun to support Sola Scriptura. If Irenaeus believed in Sola Scriptura care to show us one of his works written in defense of such a vital doctrine called Sola Scriptura?

 

[Nicea325]

Pat,

You asked for an example and I gave it. Irenaeus obviously depended on Scripture for his theology. However good he was as a theologian does not make him a good historian. He was refering to stories he had heard on the history issue. He had no way to know if they were true or not. Most historians today say he was wrong from a history standpoint even though he contributed much to christian theology. Even Catholic historians say that the Roman Church was not founded by Peter and Paul.

Of course there are many other examples of ECFs expressing the sola scriptura belief.

Rob

Wrong! No ECF ever wrote about Sola Scriptura let alone even defend it as other doctrines. You are merely injecting a false teaching into their words which not one ever supports.