Catholic Teachings.... Backed by Scripture??

[Mama Kidogo]

I don't see what is wrong with backing up doctrines from Scripture. I know that the hard copy of the Bible was obviously not in circulation and oral tradition was where it's at, but if the oral teachings did not show up in the written teachings later on, then I'd wonder why not. For me, the oral teachings should be the same as those that were put down in writing later.

Put down in writing later? What scripture was written later? I mean what scripture is post 200AD? Not everything was written. Apostolic tradition was accepted with the same authority as written by the Church until the divisions began. Like determining the canons written and included in scripture it was done by agreement. I assure you not everything written by an apostle of those taught by them ended in your Bible. some writing were just men thinking aloud on parchment and some the Church even agreed to be wrong as it did not agree with the rest.
The very ones holding to Apostolic Tradition are the same ones who's predecessors determined what's in your Bible. Well at least a part of it as modern man shortened even that to 66 books.
The idea that if it's not in your Bible it's not true of worthwhile is not and was not the thinking of the church until the Reformation. But it should not directly contradict scripture either. Scripture it's self says not all even concerning Christ was written nor could it be.
Unsubscribing as this is a pointless game. It assume truth can only come from scripture. Jesus is in scripture but Jesus is not a leather bound book.

 

[BobRyan]

Nuns, eh? Look no further than Matthew 19:21 (NKJV)

Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Nuns are female monastics who shed material possessions, in favor of a simple life following the Lord. Most Nuns are also involved with charity work, often related to the poor. Following the example of what is written in Matthew.

Nuns do not want to be worldly, for those who love the World do not know God. Nuns follow the example found in 1 John 2:15-17 (NKJV)

15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. 17 And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

So nuns shun the world in favor of honoring the Lord, rather than honoring materialism. This is evident in their dress and their demeanor, they fully follow what is set out in 1 Timothy 2:9-15. That is what I have for now on nuns, if anyone else wants to chime in...please by all means. Catholics have a diverse range of interpretations, we believe the same core beliefs, but ultimately it would help to hear a range of Catholic interpretation on these issues.

In the case of monks, nuns and priests - both Protestants and Catholics have examples of church members that choose poverty, and or service, and or celibacy in their service to God.

What is "questioned" in these cases is the institution that expels them if they should choose to later marry while still engaging in those same ministries.

I think it is certain that we have no Bible example in favor of that specific practice.

This is why i asked to have the details spelled out as to what exactly is being questioned.

The scandals that result from trying to bind them to obligations vs loss of livelihood when in fact they would be very happy to continue the same ministry only as a married person -- is by now self-evident.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SwordoftheLord]

You lost me after the no Christmas...reminds me of the JW cult.


Oh look your a KJVonlyist...im just gonna leave now

I guess you didnt read it.. there are many people (even non KJVO who choose not to celebrate Christmas), I was more focused on the date itself.. this post has nothing to do with the KJV or that type of debate anyways. BTW most KJVO celebrate Christmas...Glad to see you are leaving, as from the looks of it you wouldnt bring much meat to the table anyways

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Would you also mind stating specifically in each case listed above the point that you believe the Bible refutes, or that is missing in the Bible ... etc?

Sure I can give a brief input on what I believe on each topic (I have to hit the rack, got alot to do in the morning before I go back to work.

Nuns: Un-Biblical
Purgatory: As Fog mentioned already, started by Origen, whom the RCC considered a heretic. also un-biblical
Assumption of Mary: Un-Biblical (not found, not truth)
Priests living in Celibacy (un-biblical, Elders, Bishops, etc... are supposed to be married)
Latin Mass in a English RC church (when looking at 1 Cor. 14:19): More of a insight I was wondering about since when I went to Mass when I was a kid, it was Latin (which I did not speak nor understand)
*Christmas (since I believe Dec. 25th is a Catholic invention, and it was originally outlawed in the USA): wondering about the date, which I personally dont believe Dec. 25th was the birth of Christ anyways. Again not a attack on those who celebrate it, but I believe Christmas is a Catholic creation
Sprinking: Un-biblical, as Bible speaks of full immersion
Infant Baptism: Un-biblical as Salvation comes before Baptism (Phillip and the Enuch)
Venial and Mortal Sins: also unbiblical

Your welcome is that what you were asking? I am tired

 

[BobRyan]

The idea that if it's not in your Bible it's not true of worthwhile is not and was not the thinking of the church until the Reformation. But it should not directly contradict scripture either. Scripture it's self says not all even concerning Christ was written .

Scripture also points to prophets in both NT and OT that have nothing recorded in scripture - and certainly not all that they taught/wrote/saw was recorded.

But the issue highlighted in red is the issue for "sola scriptura" .

Mark 7 "in vain do they worship me teaching for doctrine the commandments of men" is warning us of a problem that we should all want to avoid, in that chapter we find tradition that sets aside one of the Commandments of God - even though the ones making up that tradition -would be stating that they had no intention of doing that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Put down in writing later? What scripture was written later? I mean what scripture is post 200AD? Not everything was written. Apostolic tradition was accepted with the same authority as written by the Church until the divisions began. Like determining the canons written and included in scripture it was done by agreement. I assure you not everything written by an apostle of those taught by them ended in your Bible. some writing were just men thinking aloud on parchment and some the Church even agreed to be wrong as it did not agree with the rest.
The very ones holding to Apostolic Tradition are the same ones who's predecessors determined what's in your Bible. Well at least a part of it as modern man shortened even that to 66 books.
The idea that if it's not in your Bible it's not true of worthwhile is not and was not the thinking of the church until the Reformation. But it should not directly contradict scripture either. Scripture it's self says not all even concerning Christ was written nor could it be.
Unsubscribing as this is a pointless game. It assume truth can only come from scripture. Jesus is in scripture but Jesus is not a leather bound book.

If there was proof of this "outside" tradition it might help more, but this was directed at someone saying they would do their best to use Scripture , not anything else.. And as mentioned earlier someone posted a "quote" of Ignatius, from a writing that has been proven to be a forgery yet is still being used. I personally am a huge fan of the Early Church Fathers, and have many books on them, and they do not line up with the Roman Catholic Church sorry to say that..

 

[BobRyan]

Sure I can give a brief input on what I believe on each topic (I have to hit the rack, got alot to do in the morning before I go back to work.

Nuns: Un-Biblical
Purgatory: As Fog mentioned already, started by Origen, whom the RCC considered a heretic. also un-biblical
Assumption of Mary: Un-Biblical (not found, not truth)
Priests living in Celibacy (un-biblical, Elders, Bishops, etc... are supposed to be married)

yes that is the sort of thing I was asking for.

The Assumption of Mary because she was born sinless - is a problem because it goes against the Romans 3 statement about all having sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

Purgatory is a problem because it creates an afterlife place of suffering not mentioned in the Bible and because it creates the system of indulgences to get forgiveness/escape/ not supported by the Bible. The entire concept of a "spiritual bank" where excess sufferings go in -- to be applied to the dead while they are dead, to benefit the dead apart from the resurrection - is a problem that no text supports. Even 2Macc 12 rejects that idea.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rhamiel]

In the case of monks, nuns and priests - both Protestants and Catholics have examples of church members that choose poverty, and or service, and or celibacy in their service to God.

What is "questioned" in these cases is the institution that expels them if they should choose to later marry while still engaging in those same ministries.

I think it is certain that we have no Bible example in favor of that specific practice.

This is why i asked to have the details spelled out as to what exactly is being questioned.

The scandals that result from trying to bind them to obligations vs loss of livelihood when in fact they would be very happy to continue the same ministry only as a married person -- is by now self-evident.

in Christ,

Bob

there are married people who are connected with religious orders
they are called tertiaries or members of the third order

also, your implications in your last paragraph are extremely ignorant, you should educate yourself more before you make such statements

 

[GoingByzantine]

SwordofLight, I provided a very basic understanding of Nuns. What specifically do you want to know about them/do you object about them?

 

[ebia]

Nuns

What exactly is your issue with people dedicating themselves to a disciplined life of serving god?

Purgatory

We would need to make sure we are discussing the actual doctrine, not imaginative or inaccurate perceptions of that.

Assumption of Mary

Given that it's a post-biblical event (if it happened) why would you expect it to be in the bible?

Priests living in Celibacy

You have a problem with people living in celebacy. Maybe you should take that up with Christianity's most famous celibate.

Latin Mass in a English RC church

Not sure what you are looking for here.

Sprinking

?

Infant Baptism

You might want to exclude children from the people of God. Most of us don't.

Venial and Mortal Sins

Everyone ends up categorising stuff - it's how we try to think things through.


I

 

[ebia]

(on purgatory)There is an age to come and it is either heaven or hell.

You claimed to be an ex catholic before I think? Either a badly informed one, or someone who is deliberately misleading it seems.

Purgatory is not an alternative to heaven or hell, but cleansing for heaven.
And about all the doctine formally says is that there will be be purging - a cleansing - and that will be in some sense painful.
And that's about it.

 

[prodromos]

Women taking vows of celibacy is as old as the exodus from Egypt. Read Numbers chapter 30.

 

[prodromos]

Samuel was dedicated to God. He remained celibate all his life. John the Forerunner and Baptist is another who remained celibate, not to mention our Lord and Saviour himself. Christ's mother Mary is another who remained celibate, although many Protestants will dispute that. That has been debated many times on these forums so better to leave that aside for now.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I guess you didnt read it.. there are many people (even non KJVO who choose not to celebrate Christmas), I was more focused on the date itself.. this post has nothing to do with the KJV or that type of debate anyways. BTW most KJVO celebrate Christmas...Glad to see you are leaving, as from the looks of it you wouldnt bring much meat to the table anyways

Scripture doesn't instruct us to observe the Feast of the Nativity (Christmas). We, that is Christians, do that because we love our Lord Jesus Christ. And the liturgical date is December 25th, following the ancient practice of the Church.

I certainly don't see any biblical teaching that forbids us from honoring the Lord's birth.

But since we're talking things not expressly commanded in Scripture as though they are in and of themselves a problem, perhaps we could start with the Bible itself. I've yet to actually see anywhere in Scripture that teaches

A) A definitive biblical canon and where that canon is itself defined

B) That we are restricted only to the use of Scripture as defined by such a canon.

Now here's the thing. I'm a Lutheran, we're the Sola Scriptura folks. And yet we've never had a problem with the traditions of the ancient Christian Church save for when they conflict with Scripture--that's actually what Sola Scriptura refers to. You see Sola Scriptura does not refer to some sort of "Bible Onlyism", instead it refers to Scripture alone being the infallible Regula Fidei and Norma Normans; that is, the infailing rule of faith and norming norm of Christianity. It means Scripture is the final court of appeal, and we say that in order to regulate doctrine and practice in order that we do not deviate from "the faith once and for all delivered to the saints" in order that we remain faithful and true to the Church's historic and ancient confession, its orthodoxy, and its catholicity.

It isn't a sledgehammer to go ahead smashing at the pillars and foundations of the household of faith and rebuild it from the ground up with the opinions and traditions of men--as has been the practice of most of Protestantism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BBAS 64]

Good day,

Let us be serious... the answer is clearly no:

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : while commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that “no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195.



They have failed to even clearly define one passage of scripture:

Raymond E. Brown:

To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.”

Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.

Raymond E. Brown:

Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

 

[ebia]

Good day, Let us be serious... the answer is clearly no: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger : while commenting on the documents of Vatican II (article nine of Dei verbum), stated that “no one is seriously able to maintain that there is a proof in Scripture for every catholic doctrine.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 195. They have failed to even clearly define one passage of scripture: Raymond E. Brown: To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40. Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.

All of those quotes seem perfectly sane and reasonable. I'm guessing that you posted them because you think the constitute some kind of smoking gun.

 

[BBAS 64]

All of those quotes seem perfectly sane and reasonable. I'm guessing that you posted them because you think the constitute some kind of smoking gun.

No not at all, Just answering the question.

No one would or should expect the denomination of Roman Catholics to find all their teaching in scripture, they hold their own traditions to be authoritative for what they as a church believes and teaches it's members.

It is the main reason I do not belong to that denomination.

In Him,

Bill

 

[ebia]

No not at all, Just answering the question. No one would or should expect the denomination of Roman Catholics to find all their teaching in scripture, they hold their own traditions to be authoritative for what they as a church believes and teaches it's members. It is the main reason I do not belong to that denomination. In Him, Bill

The two quotes from Raymond Brown have nothing to do with that. Of course one can't prove everything the RCC does from scripture - or for anyone else. However, it can be worth examing the fact that many of the queried things are much more in line with scripture than the OP presumes.
And in some cases may not even be what the OP presumes (eg purgatory)

(Not to mention that many are observed by other Christian churches and supported by reformation figureheads).

 

[BBAS 64]

The two quotes from Raymond Brown have nothing to do with that.

Of course one can't prove everything the RCC does from scripture - or for anyone else.

However, it can be worth examing the fact that many of the queried things are much more in line with scripture than the OP presumes. (Not to mention that many are observed by other Christian churches and supported by reformation figureheads).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but I do see the quotes as germane to the question.


I will leave them their for others to decide for themselves.

In Him,

 

[ViaCrucis]

The two quotes from Raymond Brown have nothing to do with that.

Of course one can't prove everything the RCC does from scripture - or for anyone else.

However, it can be worth examing the fact that many of the queried things are much more in line with scripture than the OP presumes. (Not to mention that many are observed by other Christian churches and supported by reformation figureheads).

Right, the reformation figureheads weren't attempting a break with the ancient catholicity of the Church, but bring reform through Christological and evangelical centricity. That for the Church to be the una sancta catholica et apostolica it must affirm, uncompromisingly, the centrality of Christ and His Gospel over and against--if need be--the very power structures of the Church. That the Church must always be the people of Word and Sacrament.

To be the Church, holy, catholic, and apostolic it must stand upon the Word of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But it does not mean burning down the house, such as radicals like Karlstadt and Müntzer sought to do.

-CryptoLutheran