Skip to comments.Radio Replies Second Volume - Unity of the Church
Posted on 06/13/2010 2:11:50 AM PDT by GonzoII
Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
Preface To Volume One of "Radio Replies"
By RT. REV. MSGR. FULTON J. SHEEN, D.D
There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church which is, of course, quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics "adore statues"; because they "put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God"; because they say "indulgence is a permission to commit sin"; because the Pope "is a Fascist"; because the "Church is the defender of Capitalism." If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.
If I were not a Catholic, and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be, that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, He must still be hated as He was when He was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world. Look for the Church that is hated by the world, as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times, as Our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior, as they sneered at Our Lord because He came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil, as Our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the Prince of Devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible, as Pilate rejected Christ because He called Himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as Our Lord was rejected by men. Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions, its members love as they love Christ, and respect its Voice as the very voice of its Founder, and the suspicion will grow, that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world, then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly, it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ Himself. But only that which is Divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is Divine.
If then, the hatred of the Church is founded on erroneous beliefs, it follows that basic need of the day is instruction. Love depends on knowledge for we cannot aspire nor desire the unknown. Our great country is filled with what might be called marginal Christians, i.e., those who live on the fringe of religion and who are descendants of Christian living parents, but who now are Christians only in name. They retain a few of its ideals out of indolence and force of habit; they knew the glorious history of Christianity only through certain emasculated forms of it, which have married the spirit of the age and are now dying with it. Of Catholicism and its sacraments, its pardon, its grace, its certitude and its peace, they know nothing except a few inherited prejudices. And yet they are good people who want to do the right thing, but who have no definite philosophy concerning it. They educate their children without religion, and yet they resent the compromising morals of their children. They would be angry if you told them they were not Christian, and yet they do not believe that Christ is God. They resent being called pagans and yet they never take a practical cognizance of the existence of God. There is only one thing of which they are certain and that is that things are not right as they are. It is just that single certitude which makes them what might be called the great "potentials," for they are ready to be pulled in either of two directions. Within a short time they must take sides; they must either gather with Christ or they must scatter; they must either be with Him or against Him; they must either be on the cross as other Christs, or under it as other executioners. Which way will these marginal Christians tend? The answer depends upon those who have the faith. Like the multitudes who followed Our Lord into the desert, they are as sheep without a shepherd. They are waiting to be shepherded either with the sheep or goats. Only this much is certain. Being human and having hearts they want more than class struggle and economics; they want Life, they want Truth, and they want Love. In a word, they want Christ.
It is to these millions who believe wrong things about the Church and to these marginal Christians, that this little book is sent. It is not to prove that they are "wrong"; it is not to prove that we are "right"; it is merely to present the truth in order that the truth may conquer through the grace of God. When men are starving, one need not go to them and tell them to avoid poison; nor to eat bread because there are vitamins in bread. One need only go to them and tell them that they are starving and here is bread, and the laws of nature will do the rest. This book of "Radio Replies" with 1,588 questions and answers goes out on a similar mission. Its primary task is not to humble the erroneous; not to glorify the Catholic Church as intellectual and self-righteous, but to present the truth in a calm, clear manner in order that with the grace of God souls may come to the blessed embrace of Christ.
It is not only the point of "Radio Replies" to prove that the Church is the only completely soul-satisfying Church in existence at the present day; it is also to suggest that the Catholic Church is the only Church existing today which goes back to the time of Christ. History is so very clear on this point, it is curious how many minds miss its obviousness. When therefore you, the readers of "Radio Replies" in the twentieth century, wish to know about Christ and about His early Church, and about His mysteries, we ask you to go not only to the written records but to the living Church which began with Christ Himself. That Church or that Mystical Person which has been living all these centuries is the basis of our faith and to us Catholics it speaks this way: "I live with Christ. I saw His Mother and I know her to be a Virgin and the loveliest and purest of all women in heaven or on earth; I saw Christ at Caesarea-Philippi, when, after changing Simon's name to Rock, He told him he was the rock upon which the Church would be built and that it would endure unto the consummation of the world. I saw Christ hanging on a cross and I saw Him rise from His tomb; I saw Magdalene rush to His feet; I saw the angels clad in white beside the great stone; I was in the Cenacle room when doubting Thomas put fingers into His hands; I was on Olivet when He ascended into heaven and promised to send His Spirit to the apostles to make them the foundation of His new Mystical Body on earth. I was at the stoning of Stephen, saw Saul hold the garments of those who slew him, and later I heard Saul, as Paul, preach Christ and Him crucified; I witnessed the beheading of Peter and Paul in Rome, and with my very eyes saw tens of thousands of martyrs crimson the sands with their blood, rather than deny the faith Peter and Paul had preached unto them; I was living when Boniface was sent to Germany, when Augustine when to England, Cyril and Methodius to the Poles, and Patrick to Ireland; at the beginning of the ninth century I recall seeing Charlemagne crowned as king in matters temporal as Peter's vicar was recognized as supreme in matters spiritual; in the thirteenth century I saw the great stones cry out in tribute to me, and burst into Gothic Cathedrals; in the shadows of those same walls I saw great Cathedrals of thought arise in the prose of Aquinas and Bonaventure, and in the poetry of Dante; in the sixteenth century I saw my children softened by the spirit of the world leave the Father's house and reform the faith instead of reforming discipline which would have brought them back again into my embrace; in the last century and at the beginning of this I heard the world say it could not accept me because I was behind the times. I am not behind the times, I am only behind the scenes. I have adapted myself to every form of government the world has ever known; I have lived with Caesars and kings, tyrants and dictators, parliaments and presidents, monarchies and republics. I have welcomed every advance of science, and were it not for me the great records of the pagan world would not have been preserved. It is true I have not changed my doctrine, but that is because the doctrine is not mine but His who sent Me. I change my garments which belong to time, but not my Spirit which belongs to eternity. In the course of my long life I have seen so many modern ideas become unmodern, that I know I shall live to chant a requiem over the modern ideas of this day, as I chanted it over the modern ideas of the last century. I celebrated the nineteen-hundredth anniversary of the death of my Redeemer and yet I am no older now than then, for my Spirit is Eternal, and the Eternal never ages. I am the abiding Personage of the centuries. I am the contemporary of all civilizations. I am never out of date, because the dateless; never out of time, because the timeless. I have four great marks: I am One, because I have the same Soul I had in the beginning; I am Holy, because that Soul is the Spirit of Holiness; I am Catholic, because that Spirit pervades every living cell of my Body; I am Apostolic, because my origin is identical with Nazareth, Galilee and Jerusalem. I shall grow weak when my members become rich and cease to pray, but I shall never die. I shall be persecuted as I am persecuted now in Mexico and Russia; I shall be crucified as I was on Calvary, but I shall rise again, and finally when time shall be no more, and I shall have grown to my full stature, then shall I be taken into heaven as the bride of my Head, Christ, where the celestial nuptials shall be celebrated, and God shall be all in all, because His Spirit is Love and Love is Heaven."
Introduction To The American Edition Of "Radio Replies" Vol One
"Radio Replies" TAN Books
"Radio Replies" by Rev. Dr. Rumble, M.S.C., is the result of five years of answering questions during a one-hour Question Box Program over Radio Station 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. The revision of "Radio Replies" for American readers was prompted by the widespread interest the Australian edition created among Protestants and Catholics during the summer of 1937, when I was carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on Catholicism "Radio Replies" proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. The clergy and laymen engaged in Street Preaching agree that it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners but what you GET INTO THEIR HANDS TO READ.
My many converts of the highways and parks throughout the Archdiocese of St. Paul have embraced the faith as a result of studying this book. Whole families have come into the Church through reading the book by this renowned convert from Anglicanism. The delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe led me to petition the author to have published a CHEAP AMERICAN EDITION in order to get this Encyclopaedia of Catholic Doctrine into the hands of fellow citizens. Because of the author's genius for brevity, preciseness, fearlessness and keen logic that avoids the usually long Scriptural and Traditional arguments of the average question and answer book, which is beyond the capacity of the man in the street, this manual of 1,588 questions and replies has already attracted readers throughout Australia, New Zealand, Africa, India, England, Ireland, Canada and now the United States.
The questions he answers are the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign. The piquant and provocative subject matter of this book makes it a fascinating assembly of 300 or more worth-while pamphlet tracts, a dictionary of doctrine for the desk of the FAMILY, the STUDENT, the SHOP HAND, the OFFICE WORKER, the ATTORNEY, the DOCTOR, the TEACHER, and the PREACHER. It is a handy standard reference book of excellence for popular questions which are more than ever being asked by restless and bewildered multitudes. It is a textbook for the Confraternities of Christian Doctrine Classes and Study Clubs.
A non-Catholic Professor after reading the book stated that, "If the Catholic Church could defend herself so logically as 'Radio Replies' demonstrates, then I do not see why you don't get more converts." Members of the Knights of Columbus, the Holy Name Societies and numerous women's societies have written in that they no longer have to apologetically say, "I can't answer that one." Catholic students in non-sectarian colleges and universities write in that they now walk the campus with this book under their arms, ready for all challenges and that this manual of ready reference has cured their INFERIORITY COMPLEX ON EXPOSITION OF CATHOLIC CLAIMS. Lapsed Catholics have come into my trailer-office to confess that the reading of "Radio Replies" has brought them back to the Church.
I am grateful to His Excellency Archbishop John G. Murray, D.D. for his approval of this compendium of dogmatic and moral theology for readers of the American Commonwealth and I am deeply appreciative to Rt. Rev. Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen, D.D. for writing the Preface to this American edition.
From my experience on the Catholic Radio Hour, on the lecture platform, and in the pulpit, I do not hesitate to say that HERE AT LAST is the book that has something for everybody, the book for the UNINFORMED CATHOLIC, THE UNEDUCATED AND EDUCATED LAPSED CATHOLIC, and the PROSPECTIVE CONVERT.
Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty
Historical Context of "Radio Replies"
If one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.
It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.
And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.
A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.
Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.
The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
Radio Replies Volume Two: Destiny of Man/Death
Radio Replies Volume Two: Immortality of Man's Soul & Pre-existence Denied
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Human Free Will
Radio Replies Volume Two: Determinism Absurd
Radio Replies Volume Two: Necessity of Religion
Radio Replies Volume Two: Salvation of the Soul
Radio Replies Volume Two: Voice of Science
Radio Replies Volume Two: Religious Racketeers
Radio Replies Volume Two: Divine Revelation
Radio Replies Volume Two: Gospels Historical
Radio Replies Volume Two: Missing Books of the Bible
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Bible Inspired
Radio Replies Volume Two: Biblical Account of Creation
Radio Replies Volume Two: New Testament Problems
Radio Replies Volume Two: Source of Christian Teaching
Radio Replies Volume Two: Jewish Rejecton of Christ
Radio Replies Volume Two: Christianity a New Religion
Radio Replies Volume Two: Rational Foundation for Belief
Radio Replies Volume Two: Causes of Unbelief
Radio Replies Volume Two: Divisions Amongst Christians
Radio Replies Volume Two: Schisms Unjustified
Radio Replies Volume Two: Facing the Problem
Radio Replies Volume Two: Wrong Approach
Radio Replies Volume Two: Is One Religion as Good as Another?
Radio Replies Volume Two: The Petrine Text
Radio Replies Volume Two: St. Peter's Supremacy
Radio Replies Volume Two: St. Peter in Rome
Radio Replies Volume Two: Temporal Power
Radio Replies Volume Two: Infallibility
“One cannot keep the Gospels and reject the Catholic Church.”
Why not? How about “indifference?” Can I accept the inerrant Word and be indifferent to the Catholic Church?
Not trying to be snarky, I’d like a serious answer, as I am asking a serious question.
Because the Holy Spirit the Author of the Gospels and the Soul of the Church is the only One who can give the authentic meaning of His letters, this He does through the teaching of the Catholic Church. It stands to reason and is verified by history that if you separate yourself from the authentic meaning of Scripture a rupture in the Church will take place.
"How about indifference?
Indifference is a "choice", an act for which those who choose must give an account.
"Can I accept the inerrant Word and be indifferent to the Catholic Church?
If you have accepted the Gospels and not the Catholic Church than you have erred in your understanding of them and your knowledge of history. Because viewed as strictly historical documents they show the establishment of a Church, by Christ, that was promised perpetuity and to which one has to belong. That same Church through a study of history can be found to this day or else Christ's word was false.
To be clear, I am not hostile to the Catholic Church...ok certain Catholics, yes but not the institution. It’s just that as I understand it, I would have to believe and do a lot of things that I do not believe in to become a Catholic.
I am on these threads to learn and hope that my (probably) silly questions do not frustrate too many folks. I recognize that some of the things I post on these threads can be taken as being mean or out of line, but I usually don’t see it that way until after I click the “post” button.
The Catholic Church also teaches that you have to follow your conscience as it is presently formed. And also we have to, through prayer and study, inform that conscience.
So I wish you the best in your endeavors at learning, I'm still at it.
There is no silly question that is sincere.
If you are truly searching here are a few superb links, if you are considering Rome.
“if you are considering Rome.”
I don’t know that I am, but I like to think that I am a sponge when it comes to learning new things. I’d like to find out as much as I can about not just the Catholic faith, but others as well. The last one I studied for over a year was mormonism. I couldn’t buy into that, but they are nice people by and large.
There is some misconception in here. Yes, there are things that the Church teaches which are not spelled out in the Scripture. Some are clarifications of what the scripture does say, but does not say it systematically. The doctrine of Trinity, divinity of Christ, necessity of faith and good works for salvation, necessity of the sacraments of the Church, the mystical connection between Mary and the Church are such things.
Then there are things of which the Church has a historical memory but that naturally fell out of scope of the Scripture. These are the lives of the apostles and Mary, or later saints. There are gaps in that knowledge, but that which we do know is precious to us.
There are also things that the Church teaches based on her authority to "bind and loose" (Mt. 16:19, 18:18). These are manner of worship, holy days, fasts, religious orders, obligations of lay faithful, etc.
Finally, there are things that are popular expressions of faith, but are not taught as mandatory. Many Marian devotions, for example, are such spontaneous modes of veneration of our first saint. In fact, we would not have any canonized saints if there hadn't been such outpour of love for the holy men and women of the Church.
None of that should present any logical challenge to any believer in the scripture, once you realize that the scripture itself is a product of the Church, that recorded her most precious memories, often in a stenographic literal manner.
If the Church ever taught a contradiction with the scripture, that would be highly suspect. But that is not the case. The Church interprets the scripture -- the entirety of it, -- with reverence and precision. Other interpretations exist, but invariably thay can, at best, explain some parts of the scripture but never the whole. This is why rightly the authors accuse the Protestants of not grasping "the essential teaching of the Gospels".
Please feel free to ask me or any of us questions, publicly or privately.
Well much like your post indicates, the church places far more importance on Mary than I do or will. To me, Mary was a person. A holy enough person to be the vessel for God on earth, but a person nonetheless.
I do not and will not accept Mary as virginal after having birthed Jesus.
I feel that Mary has at least as much if not more import placed on her than even our Saviour by some Catholics, and they do not even seem to understand that that is either what they are doing, or it is at least what they appear to be doing.
Mary never died for my sins. She was a human person that lived and died just like every other human person except One, who rose from death.
Until this morning I staunchly refused to believe that there was scriptural evidence of purgatory, (thanks Salvation). While scripture does not use the word, I at least now can see the argument for such. It is at least as clear as “rapture,” a word which also does not appear in the Bible.
I believe that the Bible is God-breathed, inerrant and whole. It is perfect and as it is perfect it is understandable w/o the need of any interpretation.
As far as historical memory goes, I flat out reject it if it is not backed up by scripture.
“There are also things that the Church teaches based on her authority to “bind and loose” (Mt. 16:19, 18:18). These are manner of worship, holy days, fasts, religious orders, obligations of lay faithful, etc.”
I have no problem with any of that.
When it comes to Protestantism my biggest problems lay with some of my fellow “charismatics.” Speaking in tongues as they think they are doing is ridiculous. They believe that they can lay on hands and heal the sick but I’ve never seen it happen successfully. I might not dress up in a suit for services but I wear the best I have while some of my fellows I’ve seen enter the sanctuary in shorts and muscle shirts. And hats....i’ve seen grown men wear HATS into God’s house.
I might be a Protestant but I’m not sure that I am a “charismatic” either. I think this journey is going to have be a long one. I am going to have to figure out what things I believe and which I can reject outright, then which things I am ambivalent on. Using those beliefs as references, then try to find out which Christian religion I best fit into.
Then again, I am an imperfect man with an imperfect mind so that plan is probably making Jesus laugh uproariously.
I hope that nothing I’ve written here angers or upsets anyone reading it as that was not my intent.
**Then again, I am an imperfect man with an imperfect mind so that plan is probably making Jesus laugh uproariously.**
Either Jesus is chuckling or shedding tears. I believe he sheds tears at a lot of people’s misconception, not necessarily yours.
One instant that I think the Lord and the Blessed Mother might shed tears together is at the instant of every abortion.
“One instant that I think the Lord and the Blessed Mother might shed tears together is at the instant of every abortion.”
It’s king of like, God gives a gift to a woman and she shoves it back in His face. That’s gotta hurt.
It is strange that you are prepared to completely ignore historical knowledge of the Church unless it is “backed by scripture”. The scripture was written to document the events surrounding the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the beginning of His Church. It was not written with the objective of giving us an encyclopedia of Christianity. The scripture itself says so. Are your equally sceptical of the historical knowledge that we have from pagan sources?
The scripture does not teach anything about Mary’s life after the Upper Room, although we do see her also in Heaven in Rev. 12. To think that she went on to the joys of marital life after she birthed her Savior is illogical though.
The Church does not teach that she is anything but a human being. The many find her friendship a way to worship her Son is just a natural expression of faith in the Gospel.
It is strange that you are prepared to completely ignore historical knowledge of the Church unless it is backed by scripture. The scripture was written to document the events surrounding the life and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the beginning of His Church. It was not written with the objective of giving us an encyclopedia of Christianity.
1) I do not need more than what is written in Gods’ Word for Salvation as far as I can tell.
2) What I mean’t was that I reject historical texts as being important for Salvation.
Sorry for the confusion.
“To think that she went on to the joys of marital life after she birthed her Savior is illogical though.”
Why? Was divorce widely accepted at the time? What was Joseph to do, just leave her or die?
“The Church does not teach that she is anything but a human being.”
That is great news, I was honestly not aware of that.
“The many find her friendship a way to worship her Son is just a natural expression of faith in the Gospel.”
Hey, I attend a charismatic church so I am in NO position to question how others worship, more power to ya.
This looks like an empty slogan: something that sounds appealingly simple and upon examination, has no useful meaning.
First, it is not itself "written in Gods Word". It is an assumption one can make by reading in many places that the Scripture is very important, a necessary part in Christian education, inspired by God, useful in disputes. Also in many places we are told that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation, and we obviously get that faith in great part from the Scripture. But nowhere does the Scripture say it with that simplicity as you said. The Scripture does not say "If something is not recorded in Scripture, it is not necessary for you to know", or "All that you need to know is in the Scripture". Christ Himself surely made refernce to common knowledge of His time (e.g. the disaster of the Tower of Siloe, Lk 13:4) and quoted things that are not in the Christian Scripture (John 7:38; Jude quotes from Enoch, Jude 1:14).
Second, you worry of the "necessary" as if there is any harm in the unnecessary. The scripture does not tell you "Find out what is necessary and discard the rest". In fact, Chirst tauight the exactly opposite attitude. For example, in the Parable of the Unprofitable Servant (Luke 17:10) He taught quite the opposite, -- that we should not stop after we have done what is "commanded of us". The Church does not say that prayers to the saints are strictly necessary (at the Eucharistic Prayer, Mary and saints are mentioned but not prayed to; at the Penitential Rite their prayers are asked thusly "I ask Blessed Mary ever virgin and all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters to pray for me to the Lord our God"; at the saints' holidays no special prayer is said to the saint being celebrated). So let us say, you decide to avoid the private devotions to saints on that score. What feeling is driving you if not spiritual sloth? Why are you not curious how Mary ended her days; how Sts Peter and Paul died; how the Trinity doctrine get established; what errors the Church fell into and how they were corrected?
Thirdly, while the scripture does not say that only the Scripture is necessary for salvation, it described Christ giving enormous powers to the Apostolic Church to "bind and loose", forgive sins, baptize and teach (Mt 16:19, Mt 18:18 Jn 20:23, Mk 17:15-16, Mt 28:19-20). In neither of these commissions Jesus says "write a book and list everything in it". Why do you run away from the authority that the Church has?
It is possible that he had children from the previous unrecorded marriage, see references to "brothers of the Lord".
“The Scripture does not say “If something is not recorded in Scripture, it is not necessary for you to know”, or “All that you need to know is in the Scripture”. Christ Himself surely made refernce to common knowledge of His time (e.g. the disaster of the Tower of Siloe, Lk 13:4) and quoted things that are not in the Christian Scripture (John 7:38; Jude quotes from Enoch, Jude 1:14).”
I simply stated that as far as I can tell, there is nothing that is not recorded in the Holy Bible that a person needs for Salvation.
“Second, you worry of the “necessary” as if there is any harm in the unnecessary.”
Harm in the unnecesary? Not really, it is just unnecessary, unneeded. Not important in regards to Salvation.
“What feeling is driving you if not spiritual sloth?”
Love of my Lord and Saviour and fellow man.
“Why are you not curious how Mary ended her days”
Why would I be? The way Christ ended His on earth are what is important.
“how Sts Peter and Paul died”
I actually did a study many years ago on how the apostles met their ends. It was very interesting, but not necessary to know for Salvation.
“how the Trinity doctrine get established”
We actually have been taught this in Protestant churches.
“what errors the Church fell into and how they were corrected?”
Not being a Catholic, I don’t really concern myself with what errors that church has made and how they were corrected. I know the big ones. I know the current one.
“Thirdly, while the scripture does not say that only the Scripture is necessary for salvation”
No, scripture only tells us what or rather WHO is needed for Salvation.
it is just unnecessary, unneeded
If I love someone, I want to know her family. I love Jesus and I want to know about His saints. Neither is "necessary"
I know the big ones. I know the current one.
Protestant communities of faith don't' know much about the Catholic Church, and what their pastors do know they lie about.
“Protestant Churches(fxd) don’t know much about the Catholic Church, and...”
...vice versa. I also do not know much about Presbyterians, Lutherans or Orthodox faiths but I am hoping to learn w/o calling their leaders “liars.”
Since I am engaged with sundry Protestants on this forum quite a bit, I know very well the Protestant doctrines.
Protestantism is based on lying about the gospel. The extrascriptural ideas about Bible Alone and Faith Alone were only possible because people trusted Luther’s knowledge of the scripture.
Orthodoxy is, of course, fine and by and large free from doctrinal error.
That's a really hard-boiled Roman Catholic way to view the world, annalex. I'd thought better of you.
Early Protestant Reformers studied both the Old and New Testaments, and rejected the accumulated layers of corruption, legalism and false doctrine built up over the centuries after Apostolic times, in order to remain true to the purest form of the Gospel. Those traditions and doctrines that withstood this Biblical "test" were retained. The rest were not.
So, this odd hobby-horse you guys have jumped on regarding Sola Scriptura, as if it is some equivalent to the legalism present in your own system of belief, is telling. All traditions, doctrines and teachings are to be tested against the scripture, and those found unscriptural or even questionably so are discarded. That's Sola Scriptura. It was not and is not a repudiation of all tradition and doctrine of the medieval Catholic Church. It was an utter rejection of false doctrine and the traditions of man that had crept into the church that were not Biblically supported.
Regarding the claim that Protestant beliefs were "only possible because people trusted Luther's knowledge of the scripture," well, there's that hardwired expectation of some worldy authority, some mere man, standing in the role of Bishop of Rome, that your ability to process the world apparently seems to depend upon entirely. You've said in the past that you've attended services in a Protestant Church, but this sort of cloistered, provincial ignorance does not support such a claim.
Luther arose more or less contemporaneously with numerous figures in the Reformation. He was no more of a Protestant "pope" with believers in him than the man in the moon. When you find yourself able to grasp this, then you can plausibly claim to know very well "the Protestant doctrines." Until then, you can't.
The scripture indeed praises the scripture, sets it up as a method of resolving disputes and notes that it is divinely inspired. But it never sets it up as a sole rule of faith; it does however set up the Church as the rule of faith.
So, “sola Scriptura” is unscriptural.
I only picked on Luther because he started the deception. Others followed.
Don’t prattle about deception when your church purports to represent an unbroken line of Apostolic succession despite centuries of disputed, corrupt papacy, sometimes three competing popes at a time.
Their own hidebound, bureaucratic myopia made the Reformation inevitable. There have been Reformers on record since at least the eighth century, easily dismissed as “heretic” until critical mass was reached in the sixteenth century.
Why, do you suppose, was that critical mass reached? Was it something in the water? Or did the utter corruption of the hierarchy, from Rome to the local level across Europe and the British Isles, have something to do with it?
You should know the answer to this. But, drag out the megaphone and cheer for your team. Rah rah rah.
Dispute about succession is not the same as absence fo valid apostolic succession. While there were false popes, there has always been a valid pope. Besides, apostolic succession is not only through popes but also through bishops, and to priests.
Yes, there were bad clergy all along. Nor were St. Peter and the Holy Apostles themselves perfect, as the Scripture shows.
None of the imperfections of the Living Church is a lie about the scripture. The so-called Reformation is. That is the difference you don’t seem to grasp.
It's internally inconsistent and illogical on its face, much like presuming a bishop is infallible in any regard, let alone on the basis of mere geography.
You appear to have resorted to an erroneous use of that which you condemn, in a comically flailing attempt to reinforce your condemnation, here.
“Protestantism is based on lying about the gospel.”
This will be our last communication on this thread.
“The extrascriptural ideas about Bible Alone and Faith Alone were only possible because people trusted Luthers knowledge of the scripture.”
So you disagree with extra scriptural writings? REALLY?
Do not bother answering, I am really not interested in hearing more from the likes of you on this thread.
Annalex: The extrascriptural ideas about Bible Alone and Faith Alone were only possible because people trusted Luthers knowledge of the scripture.
You: So you disagree with extra scriptural writings? REALLY?
Me: I hope everyone gets a good look at your “reasoning” here. That is a false statement about what Annalex posted, and your own post shows itself false. This is typical of protestants on these RF threads, and a very clear, very typical example of the nature of Catholic/protestant disagreements.
“That is a false statement”
I made no statement.
Claiming to adhere to scriptuire is not the same as actually doing it. Case in point, the two Protestant Solas, sola scriptura and sola fide, are not written anywhere and the latter is directly controverted by it.
I disagree with doctrines that contradict the scripture. I do not disagree with development of doctrine that agrees with the scripture. This is why I am Catholic.
Perhaps I should have said “counterscriptural” in reference to Sola Fide and “extrascriptural” in reference to Sola Scriptura. Extrascriptural but not counterscriptural would be fine, of course, — we have doctrines like that, — but it is still self-contradictory when “Bible Alone” is the doctrine in question.
I doubt it would have made any difference.
Where is intellectual crudity there is Protestantism.