Dealing with Sola Scriptura

[shinbits]

Catholics are not forbidden from reading the Bible; self-interpretation is forbidden. There is quite a difference. I know many Catholics who read the Bible daily, however they read it in the context and understanding as to what the Church teaches and how it is to be interpreted.

the Pharisees, who were the established religious leaders, taught many things that were unbiblical, such as blindness being a sign of sin, or that one should not gather food on the Sabbath if they have nothing to eat. Jesus refuted these statements with Biblical Scriptures. However, this would've been "self-interpretation", according to Catholics.

people interpret everything they read, that's only natural. to ban doing that, especially with the Bible, is wrong; especially since Paul praises the Boreans for checking Scripture themselves, to "see" if what was said about Christ was true. this would require interpretation by one's self. since the Bible praises this, all should do likewise.

do you agree?

 

[Virgil the Roman]

St .Pius X:
Thanks for the pages. I'm reading them now! Very good information!

You are very much welcome.

 

[Lady Bug]

regarding private interpretation:

are there any issues that the Church does allow private interpretation on? I mean, the Church can't have an interpretation for every verse in the Bible, does it, LOL?

 

[CruciFixed]

20 Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

I have a personal interpretation for this

What it means is
What it REALLY means is........

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Double Post.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Ladybug, NewMan99's post helps a lot.

As HandmaidenofGod explained, we are not forbidden to read the Bible. In fact we are even able to interpret it (after all, you should try to comprehend what you are reading - or else what is the point) - but - you mustn't put your own interpretation over and above that of the Church.

In other words, if the Church teaches that a certain passage means ABC, you cannot say that the Church is wrong and that the passage really means XYZ. We cannot interpret the Bible APART from the teachings of the Church and her Traditions.

Now...as to the whole reading the Bible thing...some people mistakenly think the Catholic Church forbids it because there are cases where the Church has forbidden the use of certain unapproved translations...usually bad translations that put heretical notions in the text. The JW Bible is an example of a Bible translation that is so bad it actually supports their false doctrines (like that Jesus was not divine and other nonsense).

But if the Church forbade reading the Bible, then it does a really bad job of it. Not only are we encouraged in many official documents from Popes etc...to read the Bible, but we also have many Bible studies in most parishes.

Additionally, the Bible is read at every Mass. We have Mass daily. The readings are rotated so that every three years almost every important passage of the Bible is read in public. You don't even have to be literate to hear the Bible read to you if you go to a Catholic Church.

In addition to that, in the liturgy itself, dozens of Bible verses are either quoted verbatim or they are paraphrased. Almost everything said in the liturgy is taken from the Bible.



No - all new Revelation ended with the last Apostle.



The good news is that as a Catholic you would be encouraged to study Scriptures - and you can even sign up for Bible Studies through your local Church.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Lady Bug]

it did help, though I was asking for specific issues LOL.

 

[Lady Bug]

also -

I have read in a book (and saw written in this thread) that revelation did end with the death of the last apostle.

I'm not debating when I ask this - but how are we to know that? Did the Church infallibly say this or does somewhere in Scripture say?

 

[NewMan99]

regarding private interpretation:

are there any issues that the Church does allow private interpretation on? I mean, the Church can't have an interpretation for every verse in the Bible, does it, LOL?

Actually the Church allows a great deal of leeway on most verses. What the Church is mainly concerned with is that we do not interpret a verse in a way that contradicts Church doctrine.

For example, in John 14:28, Jesus tells the Apostles that "The Father is greater than I."

Well...this, when considered in isolation and by disregarding all Traditions of the Church with regard to the Divinity of Christ...the Arian heretics back in the 4th century - AND the modern version of Arianism we find in the JWs today - they interpret this verse to mean that Jesus is "lesser" than the Father - they say this verse proves that Jesus was not God but rather a mini "god-let". The Arians interpret the verse apart from the teachings of the Church and her Tradition and hence conclude that Jesus is not a True God - not truly Divine and of the same essence as the Father. Clearly, they have misinterpreted this verse because there is no Church Tradition that says that Jesus is a non-divine creature.

So there are ways to interpret the Bible that complement or conform to Church teaching, and there are ways to interpret the Bible in a way that opposes or contradicts Church doctrine.

 

[NewMan99]

also -

I have read in a book (and saw written in this thread) that revelation did end with the death of the last apostle.

I'm not debating when I ask this - but how are we to know that? Did the Church infallibly say this or does somewhere in Scripture say?

Actually the Bible says this NOWHERE. It isn't there. And yet all Christians hold to it as Truth (which it is). This has been a Sacred Tradition of the Church since...well...since always. And it happens to be something that even Protestants agree (although they almost never realize that it isn't found in the Bible - it is an extra-biblical Tradition).

One of the biggest reasons why Christians (both Catholics and Protestants alike) reject Mormonism is because of their claim that Joseph Smith discovered a "new" revelation - an additional Sacred Text called The Book of Mormon. Christian say this is phony baloney because we know that all new Revelation ended with the Apostles - therefore Smith's "discovery" is a hoax.

So we Christians do believe that Revelation ended with the Apostles, but not because the Bible says this. We believe it because the Church and her Sacred Traditions says so.

 

[AllForJesus]

I am wondering about these ECF quotes



"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)



"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)

Mr.JackesLadder,
You quoted St John, please remember that used the Scripture to prove his opinions. It is like a reference but not the only one...

 

[JoabAnias]

also -

I have read in a book (and saw written in this thread) that revelation did end with the death of the last apostle.

I'm not debating when I ask this - but how are we to know that? Did the Church infallibly say this or does somewhere in Scripture say?

With the help of Catholic Answers I found and quote these answers for you that make it clear to me:

Because all that is necessary for salvation was revealed up until the death of John. No other Scripture is considered Sacred beyond what John wrote in Apocalypse.

It means there is no more public revelation. All that Jesus intended to convey to they Apostles had been conveyed. That truth is preserved in Apostolic Tradition and in Scripture.

The following verses indicate that the Christian faith was delivered complete, once and for all, to the saints of the first-century Church, that Christians are to hold to those ancient apostolic traditions, taught by word of mouth or by letter, and that Christians are to reject any new teachings that are contrary to those ancient apostolic traditions.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
​

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
​

Galatians 1:6-9 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel... 7 not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.
​

The faith was delivered once for all to the Apostles:

John 14:25-26, Jesus said to the Apostles, "These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you."

John 16:12-13, Jesus said to the Apostles, "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come."

Jude 1:3, it says, "Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints."
​

Anything contrary to the original teachings (traditions), which were received from the Apostles either by word of mouth or by letter, is to be avoided like the plaque.

1 Cor 11:2, St. Paul said, "I commend you because you ... maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you."

2 Thes 2:15, St. Paul said, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."

Gal 1:6-9 again, Paul says, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel--not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed."
​

Here's how Dei Verbum states it with scripture referenced:

4. Then, after speaking in many and varied ways through the prophets, "now at last in these days God has spoken to us in His Son" (Heb. 1:1-2). For He sent His Son, the eternal Word, who enlightens all men, so that He might dwell among men and tell them of the innermost being of God (see John 1:1-18). Jesus Christ, therefore, the Word made flesh, was sent as "a man to men." (3) He "speaks the words of God" (John 3;34), and completes the work of salvation which His Father gave Him to do (see John 5:36; John 17:4). To see Jesus is to see His Father (John 14:9). For this reason Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth. Moreover He confirmed with divine testimony what revelation proclaimed, that God is with us to free us from the darkness of sin and death, and to raise us up to life eternal.

The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13)
Vatican: the Holy See

Someone recommends reading theses verses. Revelation 22:18-19; Proverbs 30:5-6; Deut 4:2; Isa 8:20.

From the CCC:
There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

There is more said here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm

Reference threads:
New revelation ended at the death of the last Apostle?
Where does Scripture say revelation ended with death of last Apostle?
Public Revelation ended

 

[JacksLadder]

O.k. what I was raised with was that God works through all churches so it is o.k. to accept the Bible(Apocryphal were considered optional due to "dubious origins") since most real Christians confirm it as God's word so it must be it. I was taught that all churches are man made and in error(not non christian) so you have to interpret the Bible for yourself. Basically if you do not rely on the Bible then you are relying on man. It is very very hard for me to accept relying on something else such as non written oral tradition.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Catholics are not forbidden from reading the Bible; self-interpretation is forbidden. There is quite a difference. I know many Catholics who read the Bible daily, however they read it in the context and understanding as to what the Church teaches and how it is to be interpreted.

Well that isn't entirely true. There are some infallible interpreted passages(not many---IIRC it's 15 verses)...but very much is left up to the individual. Even with the infallibly interpreted Scripture--we are still allowed to have personal, individual inspiration. For example "This is my Body given up for You"--yes, the Church teaches that this is Jesus' literal Body and the institution of Holy Communion; however, a pregnant woman at Mass or reading Scripture can use that as her prayer..."Jesus, this is my body given up for You." Personal interpretation just cannot deny, defy, or contradict de fide teaching, or infallibly interpreted Scripture.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

The 15 Infallibly-Interpreted Bible Verses by the Catholic Church:

1) Romans 5:12 ("By one man sin entered into this world") refers to original sin.

(2) I Corinthians 4:7 ("What hast thou that thou hast not received") proves divine grace to be a sheer gift of God.

(3) Isaiah 7:14 ("Behold a virgin shall be with child, etc." [sic]) must be regarded as prophetic of a Redeemer to come.

(4) Genesis 3:15 ("I will put enmity between thee and the woman"), and Luke 1:28 ("Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee") contain at least implicitly the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

(5) Philippians 2:6 ("Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, did not prize being equal with God, etc." [sic]) refers to the existence of the person of Christ as the Second Divine Person of the Holy Trinity before He became man in the Incarnation.

(6) Matthew 16:16-19 ("Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church") and John 21:15-17 ("Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep") contain the doctrine of Papal Supremacy.

(7) Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not and do thou . . . confirm thy brethren") must be interpreted as providing a basis for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

(8) John 3:5 ("Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God") shows the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism with water.

(9) Luke 22:19 and I Corinthians 11:24, recording our Lord's words at the Last Supper: "Do this for a commemoration of me", indicate the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the apostles being ordained as priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass or Holy Eucharist.

(10) Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-29, demand the literal and not merely a symbolical interpretation of our Lord's words at the Last Supper: "This is my body," "This is my blood," so that we must hold they teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist or Blessed Sacrament.

(11) Malachi 1:11 ("From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is sacrifice") is a prediction of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

(12) John 6:54-57 ("unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood") does not require Communion in both kinds instead of under the form of bread only.

(13) Matthew 18:18 ("Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven") and John 20:23 ("Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them") prove the Sacrament of Penance and the power of priests to forgive sins in confession.

(14) James 5:14 ("Is any man sick . . . let him bring in the priests of the Church . . . anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord") teaches the existence of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

(15) Deuteronomy 6:5 and Matthew 22:37 ("Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and souls and mind and strength") do not require a love so spiritual and out of this world as to exclude all human emotional feelings and desires based on devotional sentiments.

 

[JacksLadder]

The 15 Infallibly-Interpreted Bible Verses by the Catholic Church:

1) Romans 5:12 ("By one man sin entered into this world") refers to original sin.

(2) I Corinthians 4:7 ("What hast thou that thou hast not received") proves divine grace to be a sheer gift of God.

(3) Isaiah 7:14 ("Behold a virgin shall be with child, etc." [sic]) must be regarded as prophetic of a Redeemer to come.

(4) Genesis 3:15 ("I will put enmity between thee and the woman"), and Luke 1:28 ("Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee") contain at least implicitly the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

(5) Philippians 2:6 ("Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, did not prize being equal with God, etc." [sic]) refers to the existence of the person of Christ as the Second Divine Person of the Holy Trinity before He became man in the Incarnation.

(6) Matthew 16:16-19 ("Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church") and John 21:15-17 ("Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep") contain the doctrine of Papal Supremacy.

(7) Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not and do thou . . . confirm thy brethren") must be interpreted as providing a basis for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

(8) John 3:5 ("Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God") shows the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism with water.

(9) Luke 22:19 and I Corinthians 11:24, recording our Lord's words at the Last Supper: "Do this for a commemoration of me", indicate the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the apostles being ordained as priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass or Holy Eucharist.

(10) Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-29, demand the literal and not merely a symbolical interpretation of our Lord's words at the Last Supper: "This is my body," "This is my blood," so that we must hold they teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist or Blessed Sacrament.

(11) Malachi 1:11 ("From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is sacrifice") is a prediction of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

(12) John 6:54-57 ("unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood") does not require Communion in both kinds instead of under the form of bread only.

(13) Matthew 18:18 ("Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven") and John 20:23 ("Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them") prove the Sacrament of Penance and the power of priests to forgive sins in confession.

(14) James 5:14 ("Is any man sick . . . let him bring in the priests of the Church . . . anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord") teaches the existence of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

(15) Deuteronomy 6:5 and Matthew 22:37 ("Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and souls and mind and strength") do not require a love so spiritual and out of this world as to exclude all human emotional feelings and desires based on devotional sentiments.

Thanks for the post

 

[NewMan99]

O.k. what I was raised with was that God works through all churches so it is o.k. to accept the Bible(Apocryphal were considered optional due to "dubious origins") since most real Christians confirm it as God's word so it must be it.

We, too, believe that God works through all churches too. In fact, the Bible tells us in more than one place that God speaks to all men's hearts. So it is. We believe that the fullness of Truth is found in the Catholic Church alone, but that Truth can be found in lesser degrees in other Christian churches - and even in some non-Chistian faiths. After all, there are a great many Truths that can be found in the Jewish faith, right? They certainly got it wrong when they rejected Jesus - but they didn't get everything wrong. They believe in One God (right), but deny that the One God is a Trinity (wrong). See what I mean?

I was taught that all churches are man made and in error(not non christian) so you have to interpret the Bible for yourself.

They say this to justify being in an erroneous man-made church. They also say this because they drive a false wedge between what is spiritual and what is material: to them the true Church is an invisible body of believers (Spirit is seen as good), whereas IF a community of believers forms and there is a visible or instititutional aspect to it...well...that is material and therefore supposedly ALWAYS man-made (as if God cannot work through material means). But they forget that God created matter too - in fact He called His MATERIAL creation "good" - and when He created mankind He called us "very good". God does not say that spirit is good and matter is bad. Rather God works THROUGH the material world to redeem and save us. That is what the Incarnation tells us: the Divine and the human - spirit and matter - come together indivisible to Redeem us. (More on this later)

My own personal policy is to observe that whenever someone says their church is man made - you can count on it. And when they say that their church teaches some error - you can count on that too. Who am I to say deny that they have some things wrong? But...and notice what I am about to say...what if one of the things they are wrong about (since they admit they have some things wrong) is their stance that ALL churches are man-made and that ALL churches teach some error??? What if there is one Church that is of divine origin? And if so, what if God protected His One Church from error?

We believe that the True Church has two dimensions. Just like Christ Himself - the Incarnated Second Godhead of the Trinity - is both Divine and human, so too the Church is both invisible/mystical AND visible/earthly. This is because Jesus' ministry was EARTHLY - and the Bible calls the Church "The BODY of Christ". So if this Divine Person with an earthly ministry and a Divine/Human nature equates the Church itself - which HE claims HE FOUNDED - with His very Body...then HIS Church is both spiritual and material...it is both visible and invisible...it is both mystical and earthly...it is both the communion of all believers who are joined by Grace AND it is the physical institutional hierarchical Church founded by Jesus and commissioned by Him to continue His earthly ministry on earth.

And we can see this mysterious quality when we consider what happened to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus. Remember his conversion story? Saul was travelling to Damascus to arrest and persecute Christian believers when he was struck down by Jesus Himself. And Jesus said to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?". So ask yourself...who was Saul persecuting? He never met Jesus. Jesus died and rose when Saul was a young child. Saul had been persecuting Christians! But not just certain Christians...but ALL of them that he could get his hands on. Saul had been persecuting THE CHURCH! Therefore, in a very real way that transcends what we can perceive Jesus DOES equate the Church (including the PHYSICAL people within it) with His very Body, which is the Church. Simply stated, Jesus = Church...and the importance of this will be apparent in what I explain in my next paragraph.

So, Jesus founded "the Church" upon the Apostles. All Christians agree with this, even if we disagree on how we are to define what the word "Church" means. But the Church He left the world to continue His earthly ministry during His absence was (and still is) an entity that has a PHYSICAL and MATERIAL dimension. It had a hierarchy (we are told to obey our prelates), it had teaching authority, it was commissioned to baptize, and it was told to do to the least of these that which we would do to Christ...in other words...we are told to FEED the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, etc... These are all PHYSICAL activities that speak to PHYSICAL needs of God's PHYCIAL children. So if the Church is of Divine origin (having been founded by Christ on the Apostles), and if the Apostles and their ministry is material and visible and hierarchical and has a structure...then we can see that the TRUE Church is NOT merely just the invisible body of believers (as per what most Protestants believe), but rather something much more than that. And IF it is of Divine origin, it will be perpetual - it will not end until Christ comes again in Glory. And if it is of Divine origin, the Spirit of Truth will protect "it" (read: the Church which is the BODY of Christ in a VERY REAL and transcendent way) from error...otherwise we would be saying that CHRIST Himself is NOT "The Truth", but rather is an admixture of Truth and error. As I explained in the previous paragraph, if Jesus = Church, then the Church MUST be the fullness of Truth or else it really is not the Body of Christ and the Bible itself erred to equate the two. The Bible did not err, nor does the Church founded by Christ upon the Apostles. Both the earthly Church and the physical Bible are examples of God working THROUGH man...just as the Incarnation shows that God worked THROUGH created matter to redeem us. No error.

So I urge you prayerfully reflect on all of this. Read it and re-read it again. As time goes by, and your journey of faith deepens, you will begin to see by bits and pieces the Truth of what I have just explained. But it might take some time.

Basically if you do not rely on the Bible then you are relying on man.

Well...couple of things here...

...again notice the false wedge inserted between spirit and matter. They are denying that God can work THROUGH man (which is also His creation) and the Bible. In other words, God worked THROUGH man when the Bible was written, right? PEOPLE wrote the Bible under Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So if God can use men to Reveal Himself to us through Sacred Scripture (which is His Word and without error), then why can God not continue to use OTHER men to help guide us (again - through the Holy Spirit...the Spirit of Truth sent to the Church) away from false interpretations?

The other thing I would point out is that we Catholics DO rely on the Bible. It is God's Holy Word, after all, and we are called to obey what it has to say. But we have to Truthfully understand it first, don't we? So I would submit to you that those who rely on the Bible but reject the teaching authority of the Divinely founded Church commissioned by Jesus to "teach the nations", then THEY are the ones who are relying on man - they are relying on their own human abilities to interpret the Bible without error. And aren't these the same people who told you that all churches have some error? Aren't they the ones who admit that they are wrong on some things?

So they are not just relying on the Bible (even though they think they are) - rather they are relying on the Bible AND man because they assume for themselves the right to private and personal interpretation of Scripture apart from the Church...which is counter what the Bible says when we are told NOT to privately interpret Scripture.

It is very very hard for me to accept relying on something else such as non written oral tradition.

The reality is that you already do accept MANY MANY MANY things based on a non-written oral tradition - even though you have never quite realized it.

Since this is somewhat of a different topic, I will address it in my next post.

Hope this helps.


God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[JacksLadder]

We, too, believe that God works through all churches too. In fact, the Bible tells us in more than one place that God speaks to all men's hearts. So it is. We believe that the fullness of Truth is found in the Catholic Church alone, but that Truth can be found in lesser degrees in other Christian churches - and even in some non-Chistian faiths. After all, there are a great many Truths that can be found in the Jewish faith, right? They certainly got it wrong when they rejected Jesus - but they didn't get everything wrong. They believe in One God (right), but deny that the One God is a Trinity (wrong). See what I mean?



They say this to justify being in an erroneous man-made church. They also say this because they drive a false wedge between what is spiritual and what is material: to them the true Church is an invisible body of believers (Spirit is seen as good), whereas IF a community of believers forms and there is a visible or instititutional aspect to it...well...that is material and therefore supposedly ALWAYS man-made (as if God cannot work through material means). But they forget that God created matter too - in fact He called His MATERIAL creation "good" - and when He created mankind He called us "very good". God does not say that spirit is good and matter is bad. Rather God works THROUGH the material world to redeem and save us. That is what the Incarnation tells us: the Divine and the human - spirit and matter - come together indivisible to Redeem us. (More on this later)

My own personal policy is to observe that whenever someone says their church is man made - you can count on it. And when they say that their church teaches some error - you can count on that too. Who am I to say deny that they have some things wrong? But...and notice what I am about to say...what if one of the things they are wrong about (since they admit they have some things wrong) is their stance that ALL churches are man-made and that ALL churches teach some error??? What if there is one Church that is of divine origin? And if so, what if God protected His One Church from error?

We believe that the True Church has two dimensions. Just like Christ Himself - the Incarnated Second Godhead of the Trinity - is both Divine and human, so too the Church is both invisible/mystical AND visible/earthly. This is because Jesus' ministry was EARTHLY - and the Bible calls the Church "The BODY of Christ". So if this Divine Person with an earthly ministry and a Divine/Human nature equates the Church itself - which HE claims HE FOUNDED - with His very Body...then HIS Church is both spiritual and material...it is both visible and invisible...it is both mystical and earthly...it is both the communion of all believers who are joined by Grace AND it is the physical institutional hierarchical Church founded by Jesus and commissioned by Him to continue His earthly ministry on earth.

And we can see this mysterious quality when we consider what happened to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus. Remember his conversion story? Saul was travelling to Damascus to arrest and persecute Christian believers when he was struck down by Jesus Himself. And Jesus said to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute ME?". So ask yourself...who was Saul persecuting? He never met Jesus. Jesus died and rose when Saul was a young child. Saul had been persecuting Christians! But not just certain Christians...but ALL of them that he could get his hands on. Saul had been persecuting THE CHURCH! Therefore, in a very real way that transcends what we can perceive Jesus DOES equate the Church (including the PHYSICAL people within it) with His very Body, which is the Church. Simply stated, Jesus = Church...and the importance of this will be apparent in what I explain in my next paragraph.

So, Jesus founded "the Church" upon the Apostles. All Christians agree with this, even if we disagree on how we are to define what the word "Church" means. But the Church He left the world to continue His earthly ministry during His absence was (and still is) an entity that has a PHYSICAL and MATERIAL dimension. It had a hierarchy (we are told to obey our prelates), it had teaching authority, it was commissioned to baptize, and it was told to do to the least of these that which we would do to Christ...in other words...we are told to FEED the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, etc... These are all PHYSICAL activities that speak to PHYSICAL needs of God's PHYCIAL children. So if the Church is of Divine origin (having been founded by Christ on the Apostles), and if the Apostles and their ministry is material and visible and hierarchical and has a structure...then we can see that the TRUE Church is NOT merely just the invisible body of believers (as per what most Protestants believe), but rather something much more than that. And IF it is of Divine origin, it will be perpetual - it will not end until Christ comes again in Glory. And if it is of Divine origin, the Spirit of Truth will protect "it" (read: the Church which is the BODY of Christ in a VERY REAL and transcendent way) from error...otherwise we would be saying that CHRIST Himself is NOT "The Truth", but rather is an admixture of Truth and error. As I explained in the previous paragraph, if Jesus = Church, then the Church MUST be the fullness of Truth or else it really is not the Body of Christ and the Bible itself erred to equate the two. The Bible did not err, nor does the Church founded by Christ upon the Apostles. Both the earthly Church and the physical Bible are examples of God working THROUGH man...just as the Incarnation shows that God worked THROUGH created matter to redeem us. No error.

So I urge you prayerfully reflect on all of this. Read it and re-read it again. As time goes by, and your journey of faith deepens, you will begin to see by bits and pieces the Truth of what I have just explained. But it might take some time.



Well...couple of things here...

...again notice the false wedge inserted between spirit and matter. They are denying that God can work THROUGH man (which is also His creation) and the Bible. In other words, God worked THROUGH man when the Bible was written, right? PEOPLE wrote the Bible under Inspiration of the Holy Spirit. So if God can use men to Reveal Himself to us through Sacred Scripture (which is His Word and without error), then why can God not continue to use OTHER men to help guide us (again - through the Holy Spirit...the Spirit of Truth sent to the Church) away from false interpretations?

The other thing I would point out is that we Catholics DO rely on the Bible. It is God's Holy Word, after all, and we are called to obey what it has to say. But we have to Truthfully understand it first, don't we? So I would submit to you that those who rely on the Bible but reject the teaching authority of the Divinely founded Church commissioned by Jesus to "teach the nations", then THEY are the ones who are relying on man - they are relying on their own human abilities to interpret the Bible without error. And aren't these the same people who told you that all churches have some error? Aren't they the ones who admit that they are wrong on some things?

So they are not just relying on the Bible (even though they think they are) - rather they are relying on the Bible AND man because they assume for themselves the right to private and personal interpretation of Scripture apart from the Church...which is counter what the Bible says when we are told NOT to privately interpret Scripture.



The reality is that you already do accept MANY MANY MANY things based on a non-written oral tradition - even though you have never quite realized it.

Since this is somewhat of a different topic, I will address it in my next post.

Hope this helps.


God's Peace,

NewMan

Thanks it dose help a lot

 

[NewMan99]

JacksLadder,

It is very very hard for me to accept relying on something else such as non written oral tradition.

As I mentioned in my last post, you already rely on non-written tradition...you just don't realize it yet.

Let me first give you a few examples so you can see that you do, indeed, embrace un-written Tradition. Then, once you can see this for yourself, I will then go on to explain more to you about the nature of Tradition and why you don't need to fear it - properly understood for what it is, and what it is not.

We'll start with something simple...something so obvious it is right in front of your face...so close you didn't even see it. I know I didn't see it until I became Catholic and it was pointed out to me.

How do you know that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew? Nowhere in the book does it claim its authorship. Indeed, VERY few books in the Bible tell us who wrote it or why we should listen to what they have to say. How do we know that Mark was written by Mark? Or Luke?

And yet we Christians say that the four Gospels were written by the four men whose names are attached to them. And it is partly because of their Apostolic nature (with Matthew and John both being Apostles, and Mark's discipleship through Peter, and Luke's connection to Paul) that we consider them to be Sacred Texts. If they were not Apostolic, we would not include them in the canon of Scripture. So this *apostolic pedigree* is more than a little important here. We accept the apostolic authorship of these 27 NT books because that is the TRADITION of the Church. If we relied on the what the books claim for themselves as to their own authorship - we would have a VERY small Bible indeed.

And even then...even if they were written by an Apostle...how do we know that they are Inspired? Not everything written by an Apostle is found in the Bible. For example, Paul claims in one of his letters that he actually wrote THREE letters to the Corinthians. We know of two of them - they are in the canon of Scripture. So why not the other letter to the Corinthians? Why isn't that in the Bible?

Therefore it isn't just enough who wrote it. There is more. And it isn't just what the book claims for itself that matters. There is more. And I say this because while we Christians affirm as a matter of absolute certainty that the Bible is the INSPIRED Word of God...the books themselves DO NOT claim Inspiration (with one or two notable exceptions).

In other words, now that we have established, as a matter of faith and affirming the Tradition of the Church, that Matthew did write the Gospel of Matthew, it must be admitted that the Book of Matthew NOWHERE claims to be Inspired. So how do we know it is Inspired? If all can safely "rely" on is the "Bible Alone" - and if the Bible alone does not tell us that the Gospel of Matthew has Apostolic origins or is Inspired...then on what basis can we claim with absolute certainty that it IS both Apostolic and Inspired??? That is the question. And the ONLY way to answer that question is to go OUTSIDE the texts of the Bible itself and rely instead on the oral and unwritten Traditions of the Church. Thus the Christian claim (embraced by ALL Christians - not just Catholic - not just Protestant - not just Orthodox) that the Gospel of Matthew is both Apostolic AND Inspired is an EXTRA-BIBLICAL belief. But it is a belief that is Objectively True and Revealed to us by God through Sacred Tradition. Just because something is extra-biblical does not mean that it is anti-biblical or false.

But this leads me to a second example, and that is the canon of Scripture itself. If it is true that texts do not tell us that they are Inspired or who wrote them, then how do we know which books should be in the Bible and which ones are not. There is not one place in the Bible itself that lists out which Apostolic writings are Inspired and should therefore comprise a New Testament for the New Covenant.

We needed the Church to settle that question. For if you went from one end of the Christian world up until the end of the fourth century you would see that different city-churches had different "canons". Only ONE Patriarchate (Alexandria) had the same exact NT canon that we have today, but it was not at that time the UNIVERSAL canon of the whole Church...on top of that Alexandria's OT canon was different than the Protestant OT canon AND the Catholic OT Canon. So it was obvious that if you went from city-church to city-church to look for "THE" Bible as we know it today - it wouldn't be found, although many of the Books were commonly held to be canonical (about 1/3 of the current NT canon was hotly debated).

Here is it a good idea to pull back and explain a bit what the word "canonical" meant to Christians back then. The Bible was NOT put together for the purposes of printing copies in a single volume so everyone could have one at their bedside. The printing press wasn't invented and the vast majority of people couldn't read anyway. So it would not have occured to the 4th century Church that having a bound "book" in one volume everyone could own would even be possible.

Rather, in their mind, the word "canonical" referred to a given texts suitability to be read within the LITURGY (what we Roman Catholics would call "The Mass", and what Eastern Christians would call the "Divine Liturgy") of the Church. Now different city churches had different liturgical calendars, usually centering around their particular cultural needs and traditions. Maybe a Church had a saint in years past who was especially courageous. And once a year they would have a Feast Day in this saint's honor - their "local hero" so to speak. And so they would choose to always read an Apostolic era text that referred to the virtue of courage (in memory of their couragous saint that they were devoted to). Thus that passage would become part of their liturgical calendar.

So every city-church had a DIFFERENT calendar for their own purposes. And they drew from a different set of writings to do this. Therefore the "canons" used by various city-churches were missing some of the NT books in the current canon - and they EVEN had some books that are NOT in the current canon. Some city-churches included Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians and the Shepherd of Hermas in their canon...and read from them in Church as if they were Scripture...and most churches did not have Revelation in theirs. Now...it isn't that these Churches didn't think that Revelation was fake or uninspired (if they had a copy of it in the first place), it is that they did not think it was fitting to be read LITURGICALLY within the context of their own calendar - because they only had so many days in the year...there wasn't room for everything.

Around that time, the heresy of Arianism (among others) arose and many Bishops became heretics. They began to include in their own liturgical calendars writings that were of dubious and spurious origin.

So this forced the Pope, and hence the Church, to examine this whole question of what is fitting to be read liturgically and what is not. And thus began the process of discernment whereby the Bishops met and discerned that 27 books - and ONLY those 27 books were fitting to be read in Church and therefore canonical. And this "canon" became the universal canon. And THAT is why in your personal Bible on your bedstand you have a NT with the same 27 books.

That decision came outside the text of the Bible itself...but it was JUST as GUIDED by the Holy Spirt as was the Inspiration of the men who wrote the Bible. And it was based on the Sacred Tradition of the Church.

And you do rely on this Tradition.

Lastly I will note that many people misunderstand what we mean by Tradition. Tradition and Scripture are both Spirit-guided - they share in a divine "nature", but they are NOT of the same "form".

So just because we claim they are of the same nature, people naturally assume they should take on the same form...and this is why they cannot see both of them. Scripture of course consists of "documented information"...it contains "bits and bytes" of tangible written documented info. Right? But Tradition is not of that form. Rather, it is nothing more or less than the *living experience* of the Church...its shared memory.

What does this mean? Glad you asked. I have to run right now...but will try to get back later to night to answer. I have to get ready for Mass...and then make tacos for the family afterward. Mmmmm...tacos...

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Virgil the Roman]

also -

I have read in a book (and saw written in this thread) that revelation did end with the death of the last apostle.

I'm not debating when I ask this - but how are we to know that? Did the Church infallibly say this or does somewhere in Scripture say?

In Blessed Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors," it was reiterated infallibly that any Catholic who contrariwise advocates that all of Public Divine Revelation did NOT end with the death of the Last Apostle (St. John), is condemned and anathematized or "excommunicated."