Posted on 09/11/2012 7:21:36 PM PDT by Salvation
In sections 131-133 of the Catechism we find this: Hence "access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."...Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology...The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful...to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ. I do not think it could be any clearer than this. The Church is telling Catholics "Read your Bibles." You may have heard that Catholics were not allowed read the Bible in earlier centuries. That is a very complicated subject that many Evangelical pastors have turned into a simplistic slogan against Catholics. In the days when peasants were illiterate, peasant Catholics depended on clergy who could read, on the Scripture stories as depicted visually on stain glass windows and statues. I explore the history of Catholic Bible reading here. The message to Catholics of this generation, who are literate and able to read, unlike Christians in earlier centuries is "Read your Bibles." We thank our Evangelical friends for so enthusiastically getting into Scripture and helping turn the last century into an age of Bible literacy. The Processional March of each Mass is lead by a person holding the Cross and then a person holding the Bible up high in the air. What many Evangelicals don't know is that each Catholic Mass has four Bible readings in it, and the Liturgy is pulled right out of Scripture (Mat 26:26-28, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:17). This layout of the Mass has continued for over a thousand years. If I follow Church advice and go to Mass everyday, I make a beautiful journey through the Bible. Perhaps by going to daily Mass we do not learn the chapter and verse numbers but it is still a wonderful exposure to Scripture. It is kind of like this. When I was a kid I did not know all the street numbers in my neighbourhood like the postman, but I knew where everybody was because I was exposed to them every day. I got to know them. By going to Mass we get a fantastic exposure to God's Word. Of course we have to study privately and/or in groups also and the Church instructs us to do that. The Catholic Church protected the Bible across the ages until the Gutenberg press was invented. Century after century, Monks in Monasteries faithfully copied Scripture. They were incredibly accurate. We have a modern discovery that is a testimony to how accurate the Monks were when they copied the Bible. The "Dead Sea Scrolls" were discovered in 1947 and they date back to 200 BC. They contain Old Testament books such as Isaiah. They predate some of the Monk's copies by 1500 years. Yet the hand copied Bibles created by monks are almost identical to the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is remarkable given that the Monks were working from copies of copies. It would take each monk a lifetime to copy one Bible and thousands of faithful Catholics dedicated their lives to this work. Catholics protected the Bible over the centuries of wars, famines, plaques, the fall of Rome, fires, and threats from all sides. This was long before any other denomination existed. The Bible didn't just drop out of the sky, spiral bound, with an NIV sticker on it. The Catholic Church chose which books to include in the Bible in the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD) and confirmed it at Carthage (397 AD). A timeline of how the Bible came to us is here. Here are the words of Professor Peter Flint, the non-Catholic scholar who translated the only English version of the Dead Sea Scrolls which won first prize from the Washington Biblical Archeology association: "Without the Catholic Church you have no Bible, just a bunch of books and letters. With the Church you have the Bible!" Even the word Bible is a Catholic word. Surprizingly, the word "Bible" is not in the Bible. It means books from the Greek word βυβλος-byblos meaning "papyrus", from the ancient Phoenician city of Byblos which exported papyrus, the "paper" of the day. We love the Bible. Honest! The Catholic position on Scripture has always been that it is without error on faith and morals and also on everything else. It is the word of God, word for word. The imperfect people who received inspiration to write it did not mess up when they put the pen to paper, even though they were fallible humans. Even with the rise of science Vatican I asserted it, Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pious XII, and Vatican II all reasserted the complete inerrancy of Scripture. The box to the right shows the councils and popes' reaffirmation of this truth. Some modern "theologians" at Vatican II wanted to limit the inerrancy of Scripture to "faith and morals" allowing "errors" in Scripture on historical events, dates etc... but Pope Paul VI stood by the Church's consistent position. The line "for the sake of our salvation" probably meant that God gave us Scripture for the purpose of our salvation. It does not make sense to say that God would put exactly what he wanted in Scripture and create an error there. To assume that the inspired writers made mistakes is to put the Bible on the same level as every other inspired book, which clearly it is not. Scripture says: Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch...reading the prophet Isaiah...[Philip] asked "do you understand what you are reading?" He replied "How can I unless someone guides me?" and he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him (Acts 8:30-31) Philip, who was an apostle and a representative of Christ's Church, helped the Ethiopian eunuch interpret the Scripture. In the Old Testament we read: So the Levites read from the book, from the law of God, with interpretation. They gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading. (Nehemiah 8:8 - my emphasis) Catholics and Evangelicals agree that the Bible is the unerring word of God. Where we differ is where the burden of interpretation lies. Evangelicals follow Martin Luther’s feeling that an individual can interpret the Bible perfectly if they pray first. Catholics agree that the Holy Spirit guides our Bible reading and illuminates our understanding. I've had some amazing experiences with Scripture where the words just came alive for me. However, I'm not sure that every time someone picks up a Bible, prays, and starts reading, that they are surrounded by the Holy Spirit, even if they are sincere. For example, Martin Luther, after praying and reading the Bible, decided that the Book of James didn't belong in the Bible. To me this is a problem, because here is a guy prayerfully reading the Bible, who decided parts of it didn't belong there, yet he said the Bible was the unerring word of God. This seems kind of cyclical to me. In the preface to his Bible, Martin Luther said: "the St. James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw ... for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it." About the Book of Revelation, Luther said: "I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . . there are many far better books for us to keep." So even for Martin Luther, Scripture alone was not enough, he acknowledged that there needed to be human authority governing it, he just thought that the authority should be him, rather than the Catholic Church. Some Evangelicals might say that that the Bible is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation. They say, "the main things are the plain things." My response would be that the Evangelical movement itself does not support that statement. Everyone interprets Scripture the moment they pick it up. Sometimes the Holy Spirit reveals stuff to us as we study which is great. But almost all of the conflicting views among Evangelicals are forwarded by sincere honest Christians who claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Surely God did not want people to have conflicting interpretations of Scripture, because that would be in conflict with the Bible itself which calls us to unity. (Jn 17:21) Each of these 33,820 denomination was formed because people came to an irreconcilable difference over the interpretation of Scripture. If Truth is not relative then there can be only one Truth. Therefore, not everyone who honestly feels they are led by the Holy Spirit when reading Scripture is correct. It is sad but true. Ironically, the way that many Evangelical denominations have decided to have unity with each other is to agree not to look at Scriptural references that they are in disagreement about. To me this is an unauthentic and superficial unity, not the deep unity that we are called to. Many have written to me and said "the only thing that is important is that we agree that Jesus is Lord." I totally agree that Jesus is Lord, but if that is all we needed to know then I wonder why He gave us 1500 pages of Scripture. He could have just showed up for a day and said "I'm Lord" and did a big miracle and split, but He didn't. He taught his apostles, who were the Church, for 3 years. His apostles wrote down his words and eventually it became what we now call the Bible. I think this was Jesus' wish. Many "Bible believing" denominations who say "Jesus is Lord" have now ruled that Gay Marriage and abortion are OK. This includes Lutherans, some Methodist churches, the United Church, Anglicans, Episcopalians etc. That is their interpretation of Scripture. I have a problem with that. I think Jesus understood the human mind's capacity to rationalize its own wishes even with the Bible in hand, and while saying "Jesus is Lord." I believe we need a higher authority than millions of diverse and conflicting Christians with Bibles in their hands. Catholics think that the final word on the interpretation of Scripture falls on the authority to which Jesus appointed. (Mathew 16:18-19). We have a Biblical example of the Church having a central interpreter in early times during the crisis of faith over circumcision. (Acts 15-16) Paul and Barnabus went to Jerusalem to settle the circumcision issue. "As they (Paul and Timothy) went through the towns they delivered to the believers the rules decided upon by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, and they told them to obey those rules." (Acts 16:3) This is a good example of the Lord using the "Church" to decide on matters of interpretation. That is probably the biggest division between Catholics and Evangelicals. So I thought I should explain it a bit and not leave it hanging, 'cause I can see how it seems blasphemous for a Catholic to say the Bible is not the "only" authority. Most certainly the Bible is infallible. However, Catholics believe that the Bible itself teaches us that the Church came before the Bible. Jesus did not write any books of the Bible. Jesus chose NOT to write but rather to build his Church, and 30-60 years later He inspired the members of his Church write down the Gospels. Several hundred years after that, He inspired members of his Church to decide what books belong in the Bible. A history of the Bible is here. If Jesus inspired members of the Church to infallibly write the Bible and later infallibly decide on what writings to include in the Bible, I think He can inspire the Church to make right interpretation of Scripture on matters that are critical to our salvation. The following passage is often used to profess Sola Scriptura (Bible alone) "...the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training" (2 Timothy 3:15-16) The passage simply says Scripture is inspired and useful. Catholics totally agree. Water is necessary for my existence but is it all I need? Most certainly not. Interestingly, there was no New Testament written back then so if this passage was saying Scripture is all we need, it would be saying that the New Testament wasn't necessary, which is obviously untrue. Catholics believe that the "Bible alone" theory is not what the Bible teaches. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Bible alone is the only authority. However, the Bible does say that Jesus founded his Church and gave it all authority. (Mat 16:18) Scripture says "And the Word became Flesh" (Jn1:1) It doesn't say "and the Word became paper." God became Flesh, He instituted and commissioned his Church. Later He inspired members of his Church to write, then He inspired members of the Church to discern which books to include in the Bible, and He inspired his Church to interpret it. This is what Catholics believe, and that is what all Christians believed for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Catholics believe Jesus ordained Peter and the Apostles to be the teaching authority over God’s Word to us. We believe that God gave Peter a special Grace to teach infallibly. Jesus said "...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Mat 16:18). We believe that Jesus extends this grace through Peter's successors to the present day Pope. We call this special grace infallibility. We think it is a rallying point and a great source of unity that Jesus summons us to in Scripture. More Christians are in unity with Rome in this way than all the other denominations combined. The Catholic Church does not claim to fully understand all Scripture. There are many mysteries within its pages that still are not fully understood. What the Church is saying is that whatever has been revealed to it and set out in Dogma is true. There are many areas of Scripture that are still mysteries, and therefore not defined as Dogma. There is much for the Church to learn. We believe God is not finished with us. That is why we say that the Catholic Church is on a pilgrimage. (more about that below) How is it possible for one organization to be confident in its claim of infallible interpretation of Scripture? Perhaps the question should be "Can God make it possible for one organization to have the power of discernment?" Could God do this if He wanted to? I believe every Christian would agree that He can do anything. The Church believes Jesus wanted to do this, He promised it, and He delivered. (Mat 16:18-19, 18:18, 28:20; Jn 14:16, 25, 16:13). Catholics think that perhaps God organized the authority thing to prevent us from having a thousand variations of Catholicism based on every person who gets a conflicting insight about Scripture. If this happened, it would not be consistent with Jesus' wish for Unity. (Jn 17:20-23, 1 Cor 1:10; 12:25 Phil 1:27 Eph 4:13-15, Eph 4:5). A Catholic friend Gary Hoge says that he discovered that in most cases where Catholics and Protestants disagree over biblical interpretation, it was, ironically, the Catholics who interpreted the Bible literally, where we Protestants gave it a figurative, allegorical interpretation. For instance: ...It seemed to me that Catholic theology usually allowed the Bible to simply mean what it says, without the complicated exegesis and linguistic gyrations that were sometimes necessary to make it support my beliefs. (From Gary Hoge) Catholics do believe what the Bible says. I don't think the Church is into squashing the individual. In fact it has great respect for the individual. Most of our Saints were simple individuals not in positions of power. Yet they have become great examples to the whole Church. The Church has great respect for these individuals who have said "yes" to the Lord. The Church learns from these individuals and has incorporated their interpretations of Scripture into doctrine. The Church relies on gifted individuals. The Church feels that God has anointed some individuals such as Thomas Aquinas with understanding. The Church goes into a process of prayer and discernment on the validity of interpretations by individuals and makes doctrine from some of the interpretations that emerge out of this official discernment. The Church is totally cool with private interpretation of Scripture. In fact many of our doctrines were defined through the giftings of people like Thomas Aquinas and Jerome who had private revelations about the interpretation of Scripture. These insights went through a process of discernment, prayer and examination by the Church. Once accepted, they eventually helped mold our understanding of what God was saying to the Church through his Holy Word. The Church is also cool with guys like you and me having private revelation, if it does not conflict with sound doctrine. If we have a new insight into an area, it can be discerned, prayed over and reviewed the same way as it was for Thomas Aquinas and others who helped mold the Church's understanding of Scripture. We have a recent example of this. Thérèse de Lisieux was a young nun who died at 24 years old. She was a "nobody" in the Church - just a little nun in a far away Carmelite convent. The Church looked at her writings and they were floored! They made her a doctor of the Church and she has influenced modern thought about the Bible in a major way. My evangelical friends will be glad to know that her greatest contribution was her total abandonment and confidence in Jesus. She had a personal relationship to Him. He was her personal Saviour. Some Evangelicals might say that that the Bible is self-explanatory and needs no interpretation. My response would be that the Evangelical movement itself does not support that statement. I would say that that is pretty well the entire job of an Evangelical preacher, to help people interpret Scripture and put it into practice in their lives. There are presently dozens of conflicting interpretations of Bible passages by different Evangelical denominations and cell groups. (i.e., the Rapture) Everyone interprets Scripture the moment they pick it up. Sometimes the Holy Spirit reveals stuff to us as we study which is great. But almost all of the conflicting views among Evangelicals are claimed to be revealed by the Holy Spirit. If we believe that Truth is not relative then there is only one truth. Catholics think its better that it is interpreted by the authority to which Jesus gave the authority. (Mathew 16:18-19). The Catholic Church doesn't claim that it understands everything about Scripture. Rather, it says that what has been revealed and defined as Dogma is true. The Church is on a pilgrimage of faith and its understanding of the mystery of God is evolving. What many Evangelicals do not know is that no mainstream Evangelical denomination agrees with the writings of the early reformers on some fundamental issues; for instance, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the role of the Eucharist, contraception, etc... Martin Luther's writings (even after the reform) are closer to Catholicism than they are to modern ECLA Lutherans. I think this clearly shows that the Evangelical understanding of Scripture has "evolved." Richard John Neuhaus describes the Catholic Church's Pilgrimage of Faith this way. . . . the Catholic Church, knowing that theological formulations fall short of expressing the fullness of truth, trusts the continuing guidance of the Spirit in a course of doctrinal development toward the ever more adequate articulation of God's Word relative to the questions posed by the time . . .(3) Article 66-67 of the Catechism says: "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. ...Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations". Perhaps the best way to throw light upon the Catholic approach is to look a dilemma in the Protestant world in the last century. Many slave owners used Scripture to justify the slave trade. They had many Bible quotes to back it up. Some would say that people who were against slavery were against the Bible and therefore against God. However, good Christians had a revelation about the interpretation of Scripture. Careful and prayerful examination of these scriptural passages revealed that the abolition of slavery would in no way contradict Scripture. Although the Bible had not changed, its meaning on this matter sharpened. Scriptural understanding matured on this matter. After much pain, God's will on the interpretation of Scripture about slavery won out. Praise God. "Amazing Grace." (The Vatican's interpretation of Scripture always was against slavery.) Right up until the 1500's Christians including the reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and the Catholic church thought the planet earth couldn't move around the sun. They cited Scripture passages stating that the world was "immovable" therefore they felt it could not turn as Copernicus theorized. (i.e., 1 Chron 16:30, Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, and Ps 104:5) Currently thousands of denominations are interpreting Scripture differently from each other, even though Scripture warns against this. (2 Peter 1:20) Each group is saying they have the correct interpretation. To me this is a perfect example of the "many truths" problem that is found in relativism. Catholics feel that God is not finished with humanity and that He is constantly revealing things about his Holy Word to us. The Church is on a "Pilgrimage" of faith and understanding. It is maturing and evolving. I don't think the Bible is a dusty archaic book that is frozen in time. It is the living word of God. Not many of us understand Hebrew and Greek of 2000 years ago which is considerably different from today’s Hebrew and Greek. Each translation of the Bible is interpreted based on many historical factors such language usage of the time etc. The Evangelical who reads the Bible in English, is already reading someone else’s interpretation of Scripture. They trust someone else’s judgment. The minute we walk into Church and hear a pastor's sermon we are influenced on Bible interpretation. Every Evangelical who goes to a Bible study is being influenced by someone else's interpretation of Scripture. Every student in an Evangelical Bible College is being influenced. We must admit that we are all affected by many different influences when interpreting Scripture. And in a way, these Evangelical sources act as teaching authorities, the way the Vatican does for Catholics. One of my Evangelical friends used to open up the New International Bible Commentary (an authority) in order to get the "right" interpretation. This does not appear to me to be consistent with his Sola Scriptural beliefs? It seems that commentaries, concourses and even Bible studies are quite a Catholic idea in that they represent an "authoritative correct" interpretation of Scripture. Any Evangelical student in Bible college has accepted an "authoritative" interpretation of Scripture. But many of these organizations are in conflict with each other on the interpretation of Scripture even though their leaders are prayerful, brilliant, faithful and humble people. It still doesn't solve the unity problem. Who's right - they both prayerfully read their Bibles? Jesus wanted all Christians to be unified in their understanding of Scripture. We think the inspired authority explanation is more Biblical and offers a greater chance at Christian unity. If I walk into any Evangelical book store I will find abundant commentaries on the Bible. Every Evangelical seminary has hundreds of books that are studies to support the students on the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Every denomination has statements about how it interprets Scripture. The Catechism is a synopsis of the Catholic faith. Its primary source is Scripture. Its other sources are the history and writings of the very first Christians (which we call the Church Fathers), the liturgy, and the Church's teaching authority which is called the Magisterium. If you want to know what the Church teaches about anything from abortion to the Trinity, you will find it in the Catechism. The Catechism in no way replaces Scripture. It is dependent on Scripture.Are Catholics into the Bible?
In this Article
What does the Catholic Church teach about Bible access and reading?
The Catholic Mass is totally Bible centred
The Catholic Church protected the Bible
Does the Catholic Church agree that the Bible is the unerring Word of God?
The Church's official position on the complete inerrancy of the Bible
Why do we sometimes need help interpreting Scripture?
Paul and Barnabus consulted the central authority of the Church on the interpretation of Scripture
Isn't the Bible alone the only Authority? (sola Scriptura)
Why does the Catholic Church think that its interpretation of Scripture is right?
Catholics take the Bible at its Word
Is Church authority squashing the individual's private interpretation of Scripture?
What about the Catholic Church's evolving understanding, isn't that relativism?
Evangelicals had an "evolving understanding" of Scripture regarding slavery
Evangelicals often trust an "authority's" interpretation of Scripture rather than their own personal interpretation
Why do Catholics refer to the Catechism? Why don't Catholics just use the Bible?
“Each of these 33,820 denomination was formed because people came to an irreconcilable difference over the interpretation of Scripture. If Truth is not relative then there can be only one Truth. Therefore, not everyone who honestly feels they are led by the Holy Spirit when reading Scripture is correct. It is sad but true. Ironically, the way that many Evangelical denominations have decided to have unity with each other is to agree not to look at Scriptural references that they are in disagreement about.
Not true. When are Catholics going to start being honest about the bogus 30k+ denominations? Seems like this gets tossed out as if everyone accepts it is a proven fact when it is NOT. However many denominations there are under the “Protestant” umbrella by no means implies that every one has a different interpretation of Scripture. There are central, main tenets that make up what is called Christianity. There cannot possibly be 30,000 DIFFERENT interpretations or beliefs about those tenets - that’s ridiculous! I’d like to hear why there are hundreds or thousands of Catholic denominations then. Does it really mean there are that many differences in beliefs among them all? When an author has to state such a blatantly false statistic, then it calls into doubt anything else he might say. Sounds like pure propaganda to me! “
The much bandied numerical denominations you and others herein have mentioned come from a protestant, that is to say non-Catholic book. The fact that Catholics mention this number is one thing. The fact that the number has been used repeatedly in the various editions of that book and other similar ones is of course a seperate matter, and one you should take up with the author, if it is such a bother.
Whether you care for or wish to dispute the number of the denominations, they are, without question, many. And unlike your statement, there are NO Catholic denominations. There is ONE Catholic Church. There are a number of rites within the Catholic Church. A rite represents an ecclesiastical tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. The beliefs are the same. For clarity, I will repeat this:
Whatever the number of the denominations one wishes to use, they do not believe exactly the same thing. PERIOD.
ALL of the rites of the Catholic Church BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS. Unlike the denominations, they are ONE. This is because they are the Church founded by Our Lord, Jesus Christ Himself.
A bit from scriptureCatholic on that:
“Matt. 5:14 - Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.
Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 - Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says, “I will build my ‘Church’ (not churches).” There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.
Matt. 16:19; 18:18 - Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.
John 10:16 - Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.
John 17:11,21,23 - Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus’ oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.
John 17:9-26 - Jesus’ prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history.
John 17:21 - Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.
Rom. 15:5 - Paul says that we as Christians must live in harmony with one another. But this can only happen if there is one Church with one body of faith. This can only happen by the charity of the Holy Spirit who dwells within the Church.
Rom. 16:17 - Paul warns us to avoid those who create dissensions and difficulties. This includes those who break away from the Church and create one denomination after another. We need to avoid their teaching, and bring them back into the one fold of Christ.
1 Cor. 1:10- Paul prays for no dissensions and disagreements among Christians, being of the same mind and the same judgment. How can Protestant pastors say that they are all of the same mind and the same judgment on matters of faith and morals?
Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 - again, the Church does not mean “invisible” unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible.
Eph. 4:11-14 - God gives members of the Church various gifts in order to attain to the unity of the faith. This unity is only found in the Catholic Church.
Eph. 4:3-5 - we are of one body, one Spirit, one faith and one baptism. This requires doctrinal unity, not 30,000 different denominations.
Eph. 5:25 - the Church is the Bride of Christ. Jesus has only one Bride, not many.
Eph. 5:30; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 6:15 - we, as Christians, are one visible body in Christ, not many bodies, many denominations.
Phil. 1:27 - Paul commands that we stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the Gospel.
Phil. 2:2 - Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Yet there are 30,000 different “Protest”ant denominations?
Col. 1:18 - Christ is the Head of the one body, the Church. He is not the Head of many bodies or many sects.
1 Tim. 6:4 - Paul warns about those who seek controversy and disputes about words. There must be a universal authority to appeal to who can trace its authority back to Christ.
2 Tim. 2:14 - do not dispute about words which only ruin the hearers. Two-thousand years of doctrinal unity is a sign of Christ’s Church.
2 Tim. 4:3 - this is a warning on following our own desires and not the teachings of God. It is not a cafeteria where we pick and choose. We must humble ourselves and accept all of Christ’s teachings which He gives us through His Church.
Rev. 7:9 - the heavenly kingdom is filled with those from every nation and from all tribes, peoples and tongues. This is “catholic,” which means universal.
1 Peter 3:8 - Peter charges us to have unity of spirit. This is impossible unless there is a central teaching authority given to us by God.
Gen. 12:2-3 - since Abram God said all the families of the earth shall be blessed. This family unity is fulfilled only in the Catholic Church.
Dan. 7:14 - Daniel prophesies that all peoples, nations and languages shall serve His kingdom. Again, this catholicity is only found in the Catholic Church.
1 Cor. 14:33 - God cannot be the author of the Protestant confusion. Only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church claims and proves to be Christ’s Church.”
I will accept your sarcasm as an acknowledgment that you added to Revelation a sense it did not carry.
Moreover, you have no way of knowing what books do or do not belong in the Bible - you have no objective standard for assessing which texts are God's Word and which are man's.
You accept a canon given to you by men.
Finally, your post implies that no Catholic "walks the walk" 7 days a week. That's an indefensible proposition on many levels and only defensible on the ground that no Christian alive has not fallen in some way.
You do realize you are not being humble before God and are guilty of the sin of Pride, right?
I would point out that of the groups that hold to "the Bible alone" as their standard there is differentiation on many "main tenets": (1) simple predestination versus double predestination versus free will (2) Trinity versus Oneness (3) infant baptism versus believer's baptism (4) premillenialism versus postmillenialism versus preterism including pre tribulation and post tribulation varieties (5) signs and wonders continue versus signs and wonders ended with the apostolic age (6) dispensationalism versus covenant (7) the "prosperity Gospel" versus Christian simplicity (8) women in ministry versus women outside of ministry (9) substitutionary atonement versus "example of love" (10) Spiritual presence in Eucharist versus memorial, etc.
These are all main tenets to many, many Christians. There are more than 10,000 possible combinations of views right there.
Far from being "ridiculous" this kind of doctrinal pluralism is a stark reality.
You’re so cute!
Of course, there's a lot of change happening. Next week the North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism is due to split into the Central-North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism and the Central-Southern-North-Western Evangelical Bible-Reformed branch of PresbyMennonCongregationalutherAdventipentecostathism, but this is good driven as there as a dispute in the Congregation on matters of doctrine, Bobama thought that he should be Preach-pasto-Prophet Elder on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and alternate Sundays while Michelle thought that she should be that -- as she had yoga-pilates-kickboxing class on Thursdays.
They were calling for her to rephrase her statement to “As a protester against Catholic morals....”
The Bible is a collection of books, of which Revelation is just one
You wrote:
“Protestants actually read the bible themselves rather than depend on flawed Catholic translations.”
That’s your assumption. 1) Many Catholics also read the Bible outside of Church services. 2) No Catholic translation is any more flawed than any Protestant translation. Almost all Protestant translations, for instance, are missing 7 books. That’s a major flaw to say the least.
“I became a Christian several years ago after becoming friends with Evangelicals who motivated me to actually read the Book. I soon realized that true Christians actually walk the walk 7 days a week rather than simply show up on Sunday and then ignore everything preached as soon as stepping outside of Church. Not to mention that Christians actually follow ONLY God’s word. Not man’s.”
First of all, your personal story doesn’t interest me in the least. I have no reason to believe anything you say. Second, the Catholic Church always teaches that we must live out Christian faith in every aspect of life. Every single one. Hence, Opus Dei. Hence, Theology of the Body. Also, you have a problem. If you’re using a translation - and I seriously doubt you’re reading the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek - then you’re relying on MEN for your Bible.
The Addition of the Book of Revelation/Apocalypse shows how the Church under the grace of the Holy Spirit pulled together the Canon that is the Bible today. Church in scripture rejected the Shepherd of Hermas even though it was accepted as scripture by many Early Christians and put in Apocalypse even after objections by many
Syrian Christians in the 2nd century rejected it, Martin Luther initially considered it to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic" and stated that "Christ is neither taught nor known in it," and is not known of in the ancient church of the Georgians.
and that is interesting -- if someone tkes this to mean adding or removing from the collection of books that is the Bible, then perhaps one should also explain why one has not read Maccabees?
And the Pope is Catholic?
interesting - so do you read the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Koine Greek texts?
Or do you read in Shakespearean 17th century English or current Modern English?
Well now you did it - you made a point so perfect you can bet you’ll not hear back from that poster....
Your examples are all from specifically the Gospels, but the same answer applies.
Like any historical claim, we take the Gospel in some measure on faith. That is in fact the basis of Christian faith: that the belief of the Church in the Incarnation and the Resurrection of Christ, as told in the Gospels are true accounts of historical events.
If Christianity could be proven by an exacting scientific or juridical standard, we would not have the faith, we would have objective knowledge.
Ancient history is generally like that: an event is recorded by a chronicler long after it happened. This is considered historical evidence, not a legal evidence. Some people believe all ancient history as it is taught is wrong chronology, same persons are presented as different people, etc. It is possible to not believe the Christian Church just in the same sense as it is possible not to believe the modern historians of antiquity. Most believe the Gospels like they believe modern historians, because both groups present plausible, albeit not scientifically only possible, version of events. There is, of course that difference that the Gospels speak of miracles. But so far as the evidence of these miracles goes, we Christians are no worse off than the rest of the students of 1c AD.
This does not mean our knowledge of ancient history is unreliable, nor, specifically, that the events of the Gospels are told unreliably. For starters, it is not true that they are all hearsay: the Apostles all saw Christ arrested; St. John was present at the moment of His death, and all saw resurrected Christ on several occasions. St. Peter saw Christ transfigured on Mount Tabor. When they speak of these events, they speak as direct witnesses.
It is clear that when St. Luke records the events of Jesus's birth, he is interviewing Mary, the direct participant and witness. For example, Luke presents a lengthy poem, the Magnificat, as her direct speech. I don't know where it would be in a courtroom, but by journalistic standards that makes them proven fact.
Then there is a question of motivation. The New Testament is written precisely when Christians faced death penalty for their beliefs. The immediate aftermath of the death of Jesus had them all suspect as blasphemers and insurgents. If they knew the essence of Christianity, the Resurrection, was based on a lie, why would they so stubbornly propagate it?
Further, the manner in which the Gospels and the Letters are written show lack of coordination. They appear exactly what they say they are: not polished myths and fables but personal accounts based on individual's memory, and instructions to already existing believing churches, all written in individual styles and at times not agreeing on details.
Having watched three separate episodes of the American Bible Challenge, this Catholic is no longer afraid to put his Biblical knowledge up against an Evangelical’s. Granted they’re up on a stage in front of all those cameras so I’m sure they’re feeling pressure, but I thought they knew the Bible better than that.
Sadly, that information is incorrect. Have you ever read through the entire Bible for yourself (instead of having the priest read it to you)? Check out the reading charts on that Lectionary thread, and compare the list to the index in your own Bible. "The Entire Bible" that's read in Mass is really only about one-fourth.
....the average nondenominational/Evangelical hears less of the Bible at service than a Catholic hears at Sunday Mass....The percentage of non-Catholic pastors who systematically read the entire Bible from their pulpits to their congregation is approximately zero....
Have you ever been in a worship service with expository preaching?
If the Pope doesn’t take the religion seriously, then why should I? (You could fill a book with similar stories):
Against faith’s rules, Rudy Giuliani receives communion at Papal Mass
BY DAILY NEWS STAFF
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Rudy Giuliani received Holy Communion during Pope Benedict’s Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral Saturday, a move that upset some of the Catholic faithful.
With his third wife standing next to him, the twice-divorced, pro-abortion, former Mayor was given the Eucharist by a priest standing next to the Pope.
Outside the mass, actress Joanne Perry, said Giuliani was “notoriously pro-choice and I feel awful, just awful, about him getting Communion. He knows better.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.