The Bible

[Servus]

I say nothing about what others have said to you, I was not present and did not hear any of it.

As I recall you were present in some of those threads.

Dei Verbum is not long, a typical reader would get though it in 10 minutes or less.

---

DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION
ON DIVINE REVELATION
DEI VERBUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED
BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 18, 1965

It looks longer via those links. But I do a lot of this on my phone and the format is hard to read on a phone. Thank you for the cut and paste onto this format. Unfortunately I'm almost out of time today, so I'll try to digest it and comment on it later on.

 

[RileyG]

The verses you mention say:

“16 The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; 17 but when he arrived in Rome, he sought me out very zealously and found [me]. 18 The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day — and you know very well how many ways he ministered [to me] at Ephesus.” (2Ti 1:16-18 NKJV)

There is nothing in those words to say that Onesiphorus was dead at the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy. That's just an assumption. Your previous post said: "Why did St. Paul and the early Christians pray for the dead then? Plenty of proof out there." Where is this "plenty of proof?" All you have supplied is an occasion when Paul prayed for Onesiphorus and his household, with no indication that he (or they) were dead at the time.

According to the early church fathers, he was already dead.

 

[Servus]

The verses you mention say:

“16 The Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain; 17 but when he arrived in Rome, he sought me out very zealously and found [me]. 18 The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day — and you know very well how many ways he ministered [to me] at Ephesus.” (2Ti 1:16-18 NKJV)

There is nothing in those words to say that Onesiphorus was dead at the time Paul wrote 2 Timothy. That's just an assumption. Your previous post said: "Why did St. Paul and the early Christians pray for the dead then? Plenty of proof out there." Where is this "plenty of proof?" All you have supplied is an occasion when Paul prayed for Onesiphorus and his household, with no indication that he (or they) were dead at the time.

What I'm wondering is how "The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day" written in a letter to Timothy constitutes being a prayer.

 

[RileyG]

What I'm wondering is how "The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day" written in a letter to Timothy constitutes being a prayer.

How is it not a prayer? Does it always need to follow a specific structure? Just curious?

 

[Servus]

How is it not a prayer? Does it always need to follow a specific structure? Just curious?

I don't know, that's why I'm wondering. It's a matter of what Paul's intention was. Was it definitely unquestionably his intention to introduce praying for the dead as a practice for all Christians to follow, when he wrote that line in his letter to Timothy?

 

[Clare73]

What I'm wondering is how "The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day" written in a letter to Timothy constitutes being a prayer.

Requests directed to God are prayer.

 

[Servus]

Requests directed to God are prayer.

Right. But was that line written to Timothy directed to God?

 

[RileyG]

I don't know, that's why I'm wondering. It's a matter of what Paul's intention was. Was it definitely unquestionably his intention to introduce praying for the dead as a practice for all Christians to follow, when he wrote that line in his letter to Timothy?

Since he was Jewish, he would have prayed for the dead anyway.

 

[RileyG]

Right. But was that line written to Timothy directed to God?

Yes, it’s asking for God to have mercy on his dead servant.

 

[Servus]

Since he was Jewish, he would have prayed for the dead anyway.

I wasn't aware that was done in Judaism.

 

[Clare73]

Since he was Jewish, he would have prayed for the dead anyway.

And because he was Jewish would he also have believed that Messiah came to set up a physical kingdom?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And because he was Jewish would he also have believed that Messiah came to set up a physical kingdom?

Seems to be straying far from the topic.

What do Catholics think of the bible?

We think thus: Through the sacred scriptures and in His goodness and wisdom God chose to reveal Himself and to make known to us the hidden purpose of His will (see Eph. 1:9) by which through Christ, the Word made flesh, man might in the Holy Spirit have access to the Father and come to share in the divine nature (see Eph. 2:18; 2 Peter 1:4).

And where does God reveal himself? In sacred scripture. Through this revelation, therefore, the invisible God (see Col. 1;15, 1 Tim. 1:17) out of the abundance of His love speaks to men as friends (see Ex. 33:11; John 15:14-15) and lives among them (see Bar. 3:38), so that He may invite and take them into fellowship with Himself.

And in history and creation too, God reveals himself. God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries.

Why does God reveal himself to us? This plan of revelation is realized by deeds and words having an inner unity: the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation manifest and confirm the teaching and realities signified by the words, while the words proclaim the deeds and clarify the mystery contained in them. By this revelation then, the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation.

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." 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).

 

[David Lamb]

According to the early church fathers, he was already dead.

If praying for the dead were to be a thing Christians should do, then surely we'd expect to find in God's Word, not early church fathers, clear teaching and/or examples that this is so. I am by no means convinced of your earlier statement that there is "plenty of proof" that Christians should pray for the dead.

 

[Servus]

Seems to be straying far from the topic.

Not really. The point is Paul wasn't adhering to Jewish beliefs and customs of the day.

 

[Servus]

If praying for the dead were to be a thing Christians should do, then surely we'd expect to find in God's Word, not early church fathers, clear teaching and/or examples that this is so. I am by no means convinced of your earlier statement that there is "plenty of proof" that Christians should pray for the dead.

Like in the Judaism of Jesus' day, men have added their own traditions to Christianity.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Not really. The point is Paul wasn't adhering to Jewish beliefs and customs of the day.

But the thread is not about saint Paul nor is it about Jewish customs.

 

[KevinT]

@ozso wrote:

From what I've gathered from numerous conversations with Catholics on the subject, the bible is a supplement to the dogma and tradition of the Catholic church.

@Xeno.of.athens wrote:

It is to head off exactly that kind of misconception that I wrote the OP and quoted from Dei Verbum.

I have just read through the posted part of Dei Verbum.

First the parts I like:

19. ... (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who "themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" we might know "the truth" concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

I like the above because it shows that the authors of the Gospel had a part in their composition. They had walked with the Master, and learned from Him. They had come to understand His teaching, and chose from all the many sermons they had heard in town after town to write down as a record. They synthesized all this into a form that would teach others to trust in Jesus. It shows the merging of the human effort with the Divine guidance. They were inspired in what they wrote. But they, themselves, were the humans that God was using to put His Divine teachings into a form that other humans could accept and understand. Someone wrote that "they were God's penmen, not God's pen".

11. ... In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him (2) they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, (3) they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted. (4) ... Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. ...

I believe that the scriptures contain everything we need for salvation. But that is different from saying that there is no error on insignificant points. There are numerous examples of minor points of differences between Gospel accounts. Just like two eyewitnesses in a courtroom, it is to be expected that there will be differences. This enhances their believability, though one or the other is certainly not 100% correct. For example, take the miracle of healing the blind beggar (or beggars). Here is a discussion about this. The important point of this miracle is that Jesus is our savior and has the power to heal. The number of beggars is not important. But if one asserts that the Bible, and every single sentence in it, is a 100% accurate representation of reality, then it is just a setup for disbelief when these discrepancies are mentioned.

12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

Agreed, and perhaps this is saying the same thing I said above.

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. ...

This is probably my biggest disagreement with this document. I am reading this to say that the "living tradition", which is what I feel @ozso is referring to as "dogma and tradition of the Catholic church" "must be taken into account." Admittedly, it is not stating here that the living tradition is to be placed in a position OVER the Bible, but the lack of explicit priority ordering troubles me. It seems to be implying that there will be no conflict between the two -- which I personally disagree with. If there is a conflict, the Bible is not stated to have priority. In a recent post here I read this:

@SabbathBlessings wrote: Not one scripture that says Sunday is the Lords day, a new day of worship, the new Sabbath, or a new commandment.

@Xeno.of.athens wrote: As a Catholic, I am guided by sacred tradition in interpreting the holy scriptures, so I do not grapple with the speculations and uncertainties of Seventh-day Adventism regarding Sunday. -- emphasis added by KT

I interpret this to mean that @Xeno.of.athens felt confident to rely on sacred tradition as a counter to @SabbathBlessings reasoning from the Bible itself.

To continue with Dei Verbum:

It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)

Here the position document states that the interpretation of the Scripture is finally subject to the judgement of the (RC) Church. And I feel this is a major difference between Catholics and Protestants.

The Protestant approach seems to be that each person is individually responsible before God to wrestle with the scriptures. Yes we should listen to and learn from other Godly teachers. But ultimately we must listen to the Holy Spirit working in our hearts to guide us into truth, in conjunction with the written text of the Bible.

In comparison, the RC approach seems to be that if everyone comes up with their own personal and private interpretation of scriptures, then all will be chaos, and the vast majority of these beliefs will be, by statistical probability, wrong. Better it would be for the laity to leave tricky points of doctrine up to those who have the time and training to properly figure out the truth. And there have been many dedicated persons all through time who have taken the time to write down what they have learned. To ignore them would be at the congregation's peril.

I can see strengths and weakness to each side -- if I actually have the two approaches framed correctly. But ultimately, I am going to choose the Protestant approach.

Am I off base in my understanding?

Kevin

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Protestant approach seems to be that each person is individually responsible before God to wrestle with the scriptures. Yes we should listen to and learn from other Godly teachers. But ultimately we must listen to the Holy Spirit working in our hearts to guide us into truth, in conjunction with the written text of the Bible.

In comparison, the RC approach seems to be that if everyone comes up with their own personal and private interpretation of scriptures, then all will be chaos, and the vast majority of these beliefs will be, by statistical probability, wrong. Better it would be for the laity to leave tricky points of doctrine up to those who have the time and training to properly figure out the truth. And there have been many dedicated persons all through time who have taken the time to write down what they have learned. To ignore them would be at the congregation's peril.

I can see strengths and weakness to each side -- if I actually have the two approaches framed correctly. But ultimately, I am going to choose the Protestant approach.

The Protestant approach, as described, appears to have resulted in a plethora of interpretive opinions and a wide array of denominations, each confident in the correctness of their interpretations. This has led to doctrinal disagreements among conservatives and liberals, Calvinists and Arminians, advocates of Sunday or Saturday observance, proponents of submersion or sprinkling baptism, credobaptists and paedobaptists, among others. And with an estimated number of denominations and independent churches that is in the tens of thousands perhaps it is time to admit that Protestant private interpretation really does lead to chaos.

Catholic hermeneutics does not lead to uniformity, but it has avoided the chaos of private interpretations.

 

[KevinT]

The Protestant approach, as described, appears to have resulted in a plethora of interpretive opinions and a wide array of denominations, each confident in the correctness of their interpretations. This has led to doctrinal disagreements among conservatives and liberals, Calvinists and Arminians, advocates of Sunday or Saturday observance, proponents of submersion or sprinkling baptism, credobaptists and paedobaptists, among others. And with an estimated number of denominations and independent churches that is in the tens of thousands perhaps it is time to admit that Protestant private interpretation really does lead to chaos.

Catholic hermeneutics does not lead to uniformity, but it has avoided the chaos of private interpretations.

Yes, I agree with you. The Protestant approach has led to a chaotic plurality of opinions and approaches.

But is that a bad thing?

I'm going to make a horrible analogy, albeit with a good purpose: Protestantism = Slime Mold.

https://imgur.com/a/GsxTkdL

Although it has no nervous system, by nature of it's chaotic approach, it is able to solve difficult problems.

Here it is solving a maze:

https://imgur.com/a/kT6S1Ir

In this video, it shows how slime mold was able to closely replicate the layout of the subway system around Tokyo.

My point is that diversity and searching in apparently random paths can have strengths. The Roman Catholic church has the advantage of having a unified approach. But this also can lead to bottlenecks, and single points of failure.

Anyway, worth thinking about.

Best wishes,
KT

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, I agree with you. The Protestant approach has led to a chaotic plurality of opinions and approaches.

But is that a bad thing?

I'm going to make a horrible analogy, albeit with a good purpose: Protestantism = Slime Mold.

https://imgur.com/a/GsxTkdL

Although it has no nervous system, by nature of it's chaotic approach, it is able to solve difficult problems.

Here it is solving a maze:

https://imgur.com/a/kT6S1Ir

In this video, it shows how slime mold was able to closely replicate the layout of the subway system around Tokyo.

My point is that diversity and searching in apparently random paths can have strengths. The Roman Catholic church has the advantage of having a unified approach. But this also can lead to bottlenecks, and single points of failure.

Anyway, worth thinking about.

Best wishes,
KT

Catholic discussions can be exceedingly lengthy, sometimes taking centuries to settle a doctrinal issue. Often, the resolution of disputes requires a papal decree to assert the Church's understanding of truth, thereby concluding all debates. The essence of my point is that Catholics engage in disputes and debates until they are instructed to cease because the Church has issued a definitive ruling through a papal decree or a Church Council. This is akin to the role of a Supreme Court in concluding legal disputes over a particular matter. In the absence of such an ultimate authority, debates could perpetuate indefinitely, leading to endless new schisms.