YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT CATHOLICISM

[Swag365]

I'm sure that you hope so. However, the point stands. And in case it's somewhat unclear, it was that a truth that is taught in Scripture remains true even if the critic demands that it be stated in different wording. There are, in fact, numerous examples of beliefs all of our Christian churches affirm even though the Bible's language is not word-for-word what we, in our languages today, use to refer to it.

As for the sufficiency of Scripture, that is affirmed in no uncertain terms in almost 20 different Bible verses, so if someone or some church summarizes that point by using a manmade term like "Sola Scriptura," it's referring to the same thing. Conversely, there is no Scriptural reference to "Sacred Tradition," yet that is the basis for doctrine in the RCC.

The Catholic Church does the same thing as the reformed churches do when referring to a number of its own teachings. There is no place in Scripture, for example, that refers to sacraments, but the church says it administers seven of them!

We were not debating the sufficiency of Sacred Scripture.

I objected to his assertion that all Christian truth must be found within the text of the Bible. See post #446.

 

[prodromos]

Why not? Because the determinations made at those mere local councils in the West were accepted in the East too, no?

Not necessarily

 

[Albion]

We were not debating the sufficiency of Sacred Scripture.

I objected to his assertion that all Christian truth must be found within the text of the Bible. See post #446.

The Bible itself describes Scripture as the ultimate, and Catholics like to say that their denomination was the one that gave the world the Bible. But then they say that it isn't all that authoritative after all, because we also have legends, folk tales, customs, the opinions of theologians, and so on...and that is the equal of God's word.

So what exactly IS the argument for relying upon something else? What "beats" the word of God himself, in other words? Logically speaking, what CAN equal or surpass the word of the Almighty as delivered to mankind by him? And why would we think so?

 

[Swag365]

The Bible itself describes Scripture as the ultimate, and Catholics like to say that their denomination was the one that gave the world the Bible. But then they say that it isn't all that authoritative after all, because we also have legends, folk tales, customs, the opinions of theologians, and so on...and that is the equal of God's word.

So what exactly IS the argument for relying upon something else? What "beats" the word of God himself, in other words? Logically speaking, what CAN equal or surpass the word of the Almighty as delivered to mankind by him? And why would we think so?

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Secondly, the word of God is not limited to Sacred Scripture. Here, you err.

Thirdly - you rely on "something else" yourself. For example, you hold that the book of James is the inspired word of God, but that teaching is not found within the text of the Bible itself. You obtained that teaching via the tradition of the Church.

Fourth, nobody wrote that there is something else that "beats" the word of God. That is another straw man.

Fifth, Catholics do not argue that " legends, folk tales, customs, the opinions of theologians . . . " are equal to the word of God. This is another straw man.

 

[Valletta]

The Bible itself describes Scripture as the ultimate, and Catholics like to say that their denomination was the one that gave the world the Bible. But then they say that it isn't all that authoritative after all, because we also have legends, folk tales, customs, the opinions of theologians, and so on...and that is the equal of God's word.

So what exactly IS the argument for relying upon something else? What "beats" the word of God himself, in other words? Logically speaking, what CAN equal or surpass the word of the Almighty as delivered to mankind by him? And why would we think so?

I don't know of any Catholic who says "their denomination," "Catholic" means universal. Catholics rely on Jesus and His teachings as passed down through the Apostles and popes. It was the Church that decided what text was God-breathed and what was not. It is your manmade tradition to take those 73 Catholic books and drop seven while adopting as part of your tradition the same order of the books of the Bible that the Catholic Church decided upon. Another of your traditions is use the Catholic numbering system of chapter and verse. Another common Protestant tradition is to use a prayer that Catholics created to go with the "Our Father," . . . "For thine is the kingdom . . ." None of these traditions which you may use are equal to the Word of God, these are mere traditions as opposed to the Word of God, which Catholics break into two categories: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[Albion]

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

Yep, that's about the only verse that ever gets cited and for good reason. But it doesn't refer to Sacred Tradition AKA Holy Tradition! It's merely the similarity of the words that is being relied upon, and it's only a similarity. They aren't spelled the same, if you notice. Tradition vs traditions.

The Biblical reference is to traditions. Which traditions are not specified there and we do not know what actions, etc. the statement might have been referring to. Yet the Church says that it can just decide for itself.

The "traditions" referred to in that verse already were in evidence to the listeners or else the instruction would have been meaningless and confusing. They probably refer to attending synagogue, continuing to observe the usual moral admonitions, and so on. But actually there is nothing specific there and there is no reference to it determining doctrine!

But with "Holy Tradition" the idea is that new doctrines are being made through later time as the popular imagination defines them. And these are supposed to be continuous through church history and throughout the length and breadth of the church. In practice, that's not adhered to.

So, in short, that verse you cited does not refer to the Catholic substitute for Sola Scriptura.

Secondly, the word of God is not limited to Sacred Scripture.

That's just speculation or a theory without any substance.

Thirdly - you rely on "something else" yourself. For example, you hold that the book of James is the inspired word of God, but that teaching is not found within the text of the Bible itself. You obtained that teaching via the tradition of the Church.

Do we not both agree that James is in the Bible, then? Yes, we do. If that is so, then I'm not relying upon anything other than the Bible!

Fourth, nobody wrote that there is something else that "beats" the word of God.

If you are to say--as the opponents of Sola Scriptura necessarily DO say-- that the Bible is not supremely authoritative, and then the church proposes an alternative (Tradition) to the Bible, that's what is being said...that the word of God is not above everything else.

But how can it seriously be denied that God IS, in fact, supreme?

Fifth, Catholics do not argue that " legends, folk tales, customs, the opinions of theologians . . . " are equal to the word of God.

That's what "Sacred Tradition" consists of. I am not sure that you are aware of this fact.

 

[Albion]

I don't know of any Catholic who says "their denomination," "Catholic" means universal.

Catholics prefer to think of their church as above all others and so choose not to call their church a denomination even though that's what it is, just as all the other ones are.

 

[Swag365]

Yep, that's about the only verse that ever gets cited and for good reason. But it doesn't refer to Sacred Tradition AKA Holy Tradition! It's merely the similarity of the words that is being relied upon, and it's only a similarity. They aren't spelled the same, if you notice. Tradition vs traditions.

The Biblical reference is to traditions. Which traditions are not specified there and we do not know what actions, etc. the statement might have been referring to. Yet the Church says that it can just decide for itself.

The "traditions" referred to in that verse already were in evidence to the listeners or else the instruction would have been meaningless and confusing. They probably refer to attending synagogue, continuing to observe the usual moral admonitions, and so on. But actually there is nothing specific there and there is no reference to it determining doctrine!

But with "Holy Tradition" the idea is that new doctrines are being made through later time as the popular imagination defines them. And these are supposed to be continuous through church history and throughout the length and breadth of the church. In practice, that's not adhered to.

So, in short, that verse you cited does not refer to the Catholic substitute for Sola Scriptura.

That is not how the Catholic Church defines Sacred Tradition. Another straw man. Read Dei Verbum. That is not how Sacred Tradition is defined or discussed in that document. I am not going to debate based on a straw-man definition of Sacred Tradition.

And if you don't like the verse I gave you, you can have another verse:

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.​

That's just speculation or a theory without any substance.

Nonsense. Sacred Scripture refers to our Lord himself as the word of God. And Sacred Scripture implies that our Lord did and taught many things that are not recorded in Sacred Scripture (which should be obvious to any person with a brain). Obviously anything that our Lord taught and that is not recorded in Sacred Scripture is the word of God. What is "without any substance" is what you assert - that the word of God is limited to Sacred Scripture.

Do we not both agree that James is in the Bible, then? Yes, we do. If that is so, then I'm not relying upon anything other than the Bible!

Nonsense. If you are relying on the Bible for your belief that the book of James is the inspired word of God, please provide the verse that teaches that. We both know that you cannot.

If you are to say--as the opponents of Sola Scriptura necessarily DO say-- that the Bible is not supremely authoritative, and then the church proposes an alternative (Tradition) to the Bible, that's what is being said...that the word of God is not above everything else.

Nonsense, another straw man. Nobody wrote that the Bible is not supremely authoritative. The Bible is supremely authoritative. Our Lord Jesus is supremely authoritative. Does the fact that our Lord Jesus is supremely authoritative mean that the word of God is not supremely authoritative? Complete nonsense.

But how can it seriously be denied that God IS, in fact, supreme?

Nobody has denied that. Another straw man.

That's what "Sacred Tradition" consists of. I am not sure that you are aware of this fact.

Nonsense. Another straw man. Read Dei Verbum.

 

[Swag365]

Catholics prefer to think of their church as above all others and so choose not to call their church a denomination even though that's what it is, just as all the other ones are.

Not all Catholics. I have no issue with the idea that Catholicism is a Christian denomination. Just look at the definition of the word itself:

Definition of DENOMINATION
a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

There is nothing objectionable in the definition of the word itself.

Catholics who object to the use of the word typically do so because they object to the idea that the Catholic Church "split off" from the true church described in Sacred Scripture, and the word "denomination" can imply that in some people's minds. To the extent that the word implies that, then the objection is proper.

 

[Albion]

That is not how the Catholic Church defines Sacred Tradition.

That's right. The subject is much more complex than that short explanation could cover, but it was the basic answer about what "Sacred Tradition" is and how it works.

I am not going to debate based on a straw-man definition of Sacred Tradition.

I'm not surprised, since there is no way to defend putting men's theories above the revealed word of God...and last I knew, we both consider the Bible to BE divine revelation.

 

[Albion]

Not all Catholics.

I agree. It's not everybody. So let's just agree that its rather common with Catholics. And it's truly rare among Protestants.

I have no issue with the idea that Catholicism is a Christian denomination. Just look at the definition of the word itself:

Definition of DENOMINATION
a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

There is nothing objectionable in the definition of the word itself.

YES! Thank you.

 

[Swag365]

That's right. The subject is much more complex than that short explanation could cover, but it was the basic answer about what "Sacred Tradition" is and how it works.

No, your "basic explanation" was completely wrong. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches. I gave you an official document with what the Church teaches, and that document reads nothing like what you wrote. What you wrote is a complete straw-man and I reject it.

there is no way to defend putting men's theories above the revealed word of God

Another straw man. Nobody has attempted to do that.

 

[Swag365]

I agree. It's not everybody. So let's just agree that its rather common with Catholics. And it's truly rare among Protestants.



YES! Thank you.

Well I think it's fair to say that there are a significant number of Catholics who don't like the Catholic Church being referred to as a denomination. I cannot deny that.

 

[Albion]

No, your "basic explanation" was completely wrong. That is not what the Catholic Church teaches.

What you wrote is a complete straw-man and I reject it.

Another straw man.

Well, unless there's more than that, there's nothing to debate. Calling anything and everything that offers a different view of things a "strawman" doesn't leave anything on the table to discuss.

 

[Swag365]

Well, unless there's more than that, there's nothing to debate. Calling anything and everything that offers a different view of things a "strawman" doesn't leave anything on the table to discuss.

No, presenting a straw-man when you have been presented with an official document with the correct teaching leaves nothing left to discuss. I am not going to waste my time debating something that the Catholic Church does not even teach.

 

[Valletta]

[QUOTE="Major1, post: 76141395, member: 391026"

REAL HISTORICAL FACTS are that The Roman Catholic Church hid the Bible from the common people.

REAL FACTS tell us that the Roman Catholic leaders by the Middle Ages did not know the Bible. at all. Most people bought their position as priests. Many did not have a Bible at all; but more importantly, many local priests did not even know how to read. [/QUOTE]


We all owe a great debt to the Catholic Church--no Catholic Church, no Bible. So many Catholics translated Biblical text into the common languages of the people. Apparently you have lost this part of history. After Latin surpassed Greek as to the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics.
There were so many translations of Biblical text before Gutenberg's Bible, in English, Bohemian, Hungarian, Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, and Polish to name some. Also before Gutenberg's Bible used the printing press to print the Bible, a monk might spend years copying a Bible by hand. Monasteries might have just one Bible, and Catholic monks and priests had to memorize long passages so they could go out and preach the Bible to the people. Parchment and ink were expensive. It would be beyond the means of all but the wealthy to afford such a Bible were one actually put up for sale. And most of the laity was illiterate.

 

[Major1]

That isn't what I asked you.

Still doesn't answer my question. I'm guessing you can't provide any biblical defense for your man made tradition that all true doctrine can only be found in the Bible.

What man made traditions are you referring to? A blanket statement such as that leaves a lot of room for thought.

 

[Major1]

No, presenting a straw-man when you have been presented with an official document with the correct teaching leaves nothing left to discuss. I am not going to waste my time debating something that the Catholic Church does not even teach.

But.......the Catholic church does teach the "Sinless Conception of Mary which is not found in the Bible.

The Catholic church teaches the "Assumption of Mary" which is not found in the Bible.

The Catholic church teaches "Purgatory" which is not found in the Bible.

The Catholic church teaches that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the final authority, not scripture.

The Catholic church teaches that Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church!

Why not spend some time explaining why those things are accepted which are NOT found in the Bible.

 

[Major1]

What @Major1 asserted is not taught taught in Sacred Scripture, explicitly, implicitly, verbatim, non-verbatim, or otherwise, so what you wrote here is irrelevant.

And if I provided @Major1 with verses that implicitly support the concept of purgatory, he would reject the implicit support and ask for explicit support. So I am holding him to exactly the same standard that he holds me.

"IF" is an IMPOSSIBILITY!!!!! You can not post any Scripture found in the KJV, the ESV, the NIV or ASV of the Bible that even hints of Purgatory.

 

[Swag365]

But.......the Catholic church does teach the "Sinless Conception of Mary which is not found in the Bible.

The Catholic church teaches the "Assumption of Mary" which is not found in the Bible.

The Catholic church teaches "Purgatory" which is not found in the Bible.

The Catholic church teaches that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the final authority, not scripture.

The Catholic church teaches that Salvation is only through the Roman Catholic Church!

Why not spend some time explaining why those things are accepted which are NOT found in the Bible.

You can either 1) give us the verse that teaches that the book of James is the inspired word of God, or 2) admit that not all Christian truths must be found in the text of the Bible. Which is it?