Is All That God Left Us Was A Book?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1244567' date='Apr 15 2007, 04:17 PM']also, i think it'd do both sides good to acknowledge what they are saying. catholics often have to resort to "well, i give preference to the idea that we need a church to guide" just as prots resort to saying they don't think it's that way. both sides have hard evidence for their beliefs, so when it's all said and done, it really comes down to preference. it'd do all good to realize that.[/quote]


Do you think preference will mean a whole lot when you get to the pearlys. Well I preferred these teachings over truth?

I don't know how many prots I have run in to who seem to thing that being able to interpret scripture themselves was of higher value than recieving the truth. The bereans "recieved the word readily". Protestants seem to think they can extract it from the book. And if they don't have alot of it right that's no biggie. Hey, we'll sort it all out when we get to heaven and we'll laugh about how silly we were when we had something wrong. I have in fact heard radio hosts say things like this. Tis sad. Error has eternal consequences. If it is not missing heaven it will be less reward and longer purgatory time. Hope ya don't miss the runway. On the flip side, us Catholics have a highter responsiblity for the truth and will be judged more harshly if we don't let it change our lives.

[thessalonian]

Couple of points your clearly missing Dairy. Quite clearly the truth was not ONLY passed on by a book and quite clearly you are even admiting that it is not of the book entirely. But that is the way MANY protestants treat the Bible. In fact as 2 Tim 2:2 quite clearly shows there were understandings about the scripture and truth that were passed on from one to another. Tradition it's called.

Second point: Did you get that, only a few apostles actually wrote anything down and jesus himself wrote nothing. At the end of John's Gospel we are told we are only given a small portion of what he said and did. The words of jesus could be read in perhaps 20 minutes from a red letter Bible. But the Apostles were taught by him for 3 years. Why didn't they write more down if that was the most important thing they were supposed to do. No, the were supposed to orraly teach. He who HEARS you HEARS me. To pass on the oral teaching. Hearing and recieving the word of God is emphasized for more in the Gospel than reading the word of God.

Blessings

Edited April 16, 2007 by thessalonian

[Katholikos]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='1244348' date='Apr 15 2007, 12:34 PM']God just didn't leave us the Bible. He also sent another, the Holy Spirit... the Comforter.

I think the biggie is this. If the Holy Spirit can guide the Magistrum, why can't the Holy Spirit guide little Jack Horner while reading and interpreting the scriptures?[/quote]

The Holy Spirit indeed guides the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. He could have -- but He didn't, He wouldn't, guide the "Little Jack Horners" of the world to start all those thousands of competing and conflicting denominations. The "Jack Horners" claim that the Holy Spirit "led them to all truth." but the Spirit of Truth had no part in it.
The Spirit, Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, was assigned by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity to guide the Church which He, Jesus Christ, founded for the salvation of the world. The Spirit was not assigned to help any of the founders create denominations in rebellion against Christ's One True Church.

[quote]If Jack is also a part of the royal priesthood, then why can't he, someone who is a part of the priesthood and guided by the Holy Spirit, can't interpret the scriptures?[/quote]

There is the ministerial, ordained priesthood of the One True Church and there is the priesthood of the faithful who belong to that Church. The ministerial priest is ordained to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to remit and retain sins. The priesthood of the faithful is received by everyone at baptism and strengthened by confirmatiion and the Eucharist. It gives us the right to receive the sacraments and of participating in the Church's liturgy, of being united with Christ the Eternal Priest as He offers Himself, with the members of his mystical body, to the Heavenly Father in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

Likos

Reference: John A. Hardon, S.J., Modern Catholic Dictionary

[thessalonian]

The Holy Spirit does guide but the Holy Spirit does not re-reveal. We are told in the scriptures that revelatoin was given ONCE for all. So if there is something that the bible does expound enough for full understanding it still has to be here. It is in the teachings of the Catholic Church through sacred oral Tradition and the Magesterium, passed down through the ages. Even scripture itself is a tradition. That is what 2 thes 2:15 says. It is in fact a part of tradition, the written part. There is that "word of mouth" part as well.

Blessings

Edited April 16, 2007 by thessalonian

[dairygirl4u2c]

i agree there are many who think the bible is enough and nothing outside can be considered. i don't think it's as many as you say though.


like i said about the word preference.
[quote]well i shouldn't have said preference. but, it comes down to what each side thinks God wants, based on their gut feeling, given the uncertainty, after all is said and done.

that said, i do note raphael and many others probably do not think that either.
protestants are clearly rebelling against God were that that case.
it's always ironic when each side is "clearly" right.[/quote]

even if you convince the few/many who think that nothing outside can be considered, that's only 5 percent of the battle. you then have to show them that the CC is the way it's suppose to be.

it does also bear stressing again that it's ironic people think the CC is clearly what it says while prots say clearly not. which prove smy points again what i said in the quote above. everyone's basing things on their gut feelings. given the uncertainty, that's just the way it is and has to be.

[thessalonian]

So in other words "trust in your own understanding" is it regardless of prov 3:5. Sad that God gave the truth that would set us free but we have no real way of knowing it isn't it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes, in a way it is sad that much cannot be known.
i tend to think the things that are less able to be know are not as important. what can be known is important.

anyway, saying things are "clearly" what you say reaffirms to me that you think that only because you strawman the otherside. sure, if sola scriptora is thinking the bible is a complete guide to life without reference to anything outside, then your side seems much more clear. but, that's not what sola is. random site, justforcatholics, below.
i would recommend reading his Q and A section, and not rehashing things that are essentially strawmen when there are much more important issues, namely historical interpretation. (though if this thread is meant for those few who do stick their head in the mud, you can't go there as easy but. for reasonable prots, which is most, your time is better spent on what is non-strawman type issues to the majority)

www.justforcatholics.org
[quote]Having indicated what sola Scriptura is, we must also discuss what it is not. Sola Scriptura is often misunderstood and misrepresented. I am dismayed and angered whenever I read Catholic literature on this subject because more often then not they are attacking a straw man.

Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible does not give exhaustive details on the history of redemption. John 21:25 says that not all that Jesus did is recorded in the book; all the books of the world would not be enough for that purpose. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the church. We need 'enough' knowledge not 'exhaustive' knowledge. Sometimes Catholic apologists argue for the need of tradition, saying that Bible does not record everything. Apparently they do not realize that tradition is not exhaustive either! Does tradition give us all possible information about the life of Christ, and all that He said, and all the apostles did and said? Of course not! In fact, we would respectfully challenge our Catholic friends to give us one statement that Jesus said that comes to us by tradition and not from the Holy Scripture.
[I think this last idea is a good point of attack for the CC, but the first part of the paragraph is enough to rebut your premise of this thread]Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the church's authority to teach God's revelation. The Church is 'the pillar and foundation of the truth' (I Timothy 3:15) because it upholds and teaches the Word of God. However the church cannot add doctrines of human origin or contradict the God-breathed Scriptures. The church's authority is subordinate to the authority of the Bible. Moreover, the church is commissioned to preach the Word orally, and to transmit the Christian Gospel from one generation to the next. The most enthusiastic proponents of sola Scriptura do so eagerly and do their best to make sure that their preaching is consistent with the written Word of God.

Sola Scriptura is not a denial that historically God's Word came in other ways other than the written form. Before writing down His message, God spoke through the apostles and prophets, and personally in Christ Jesus, His Son. During the same time the Holy Spirit moved holy men to write down His Word to be the permanent inspired record of His message for the post-apostolic age till the end. The apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20) and though they are absent, we can still build our lives on their teaching which is recorded infallibly in the Holy Scriptures.

Sola Scriptura does not imply that the Bible will always be interpreted correctly, or that there will not be differences and heresies among Christians. Jesus was clear enough in His teaching, yet His disciples often misunderstood Him. The apostles' message was also perfectly intelligible, and yet all sorts of errors and heresies crept in the early church. Similarly, the Bible is not written in a mysterious and cryptic code that needs some infallible decoder to explain its hidden meaning. The Bible is addressed to the ordinary people of God and it can be understood. The problem lies not with the clarity of the Bible, but with people who often ignore the Bible or twist the its meaning because of laziness, ignorance and prejudice.

'What is the infallible rule of faith?' remains the a major dividing issue between Catholics and Protestants. And rightly so. We are building on different foundations.

The Roman Catholic answers something like this, 'God's Word is found in the Bible and in Tradition. But you can't understand the Bible correctly. As for Tradition, no one knows exactly what it contains. Therefore you must submit without reservations to the Pope and the bishops of the Roman church. The teaching of the Catholic magisterium is the infallible rule of faith.'

An Evangelical answers differently, 'The Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that God's people may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.'[/quote]

Edited April 16, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

Ah, I see the infallible word on the dogma Sola Scriptura is there for all to see from justforcatholics.com. That where you get all your info these days Dairy? No wonder your confused.

[quote]i tend to think the things that are less able to be know are not as important.[/quote]

Ah, so you can't really know if the Catholic teaching on the Eucharist is true so it is unimportant. That is how it works. "unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life within you" is unimportant?

Here we have another protestant making lists of "the main things are the plain things" and the scriptures contain everything essential for salvation, but here is a list of 1 or 6 or 20 or 100 things that are really essential and the rest of scripture really isn't essential. What a bunch of nonsense. Do you understand how dangerous it is to make up a list of essentials for yourself and apply that to others you are trying to help see the truth? Any idea DAIRY?

90% of Protestants ask me "Where is that in the bible" and I give the interpretations that are historic and they reject them. They reject was has been passed down. But I guess that is the unimportant stuff for you. No this thread is for all protestants, because even the more "reasonable ones" (the type from justforcathics? Ya right) reject the traditions that can be shown to have existed in 100,200, 400,800,1200, 1500 and today. Continue to trust in your own understanding if you like Dairy. You have had things explained to you for years now and simply resist them. God is your judge of course but I can't condone your obstinance to the truth.

The scriptures say "You shall KNOW THE TRUTH and the TRUTH shall set you free". Dairy tells us it is no longer knowable and so you have to go with what those nuerons in your mind tell you. That whatevery you come up with is good enough and most of the truth really isn't important anyway.

Edited April 16, 2007 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

Funny dairy,

You give the link to justforcatholics and the first article I read, regarding John 20:21-23, there abuses scripture exactly the way I describe, using solo scriptura and some handwaving about what the Apostles did and didn't do. No reference to tradition or historical evidence in the slightest. Some handwaving about things the passage left out and then some handwaving about what other passages "prove". So I guess these guys aren't the "reasonable" protestants you speak of. By the way, I am familiar with JforC. It's not the worst on the web but has alot of nonsense which I don't have much time for these days.

Edited April 16, 2007 by thessalonian

[Katholikos]

Quote authentic, official Catholic sources for your allegations, Dairygirl, not this poisonous anti-Catholic bull-oney. Just for Catholics is false, full of erroneous statements. This is not Catholic teaching, so why should we respond to it?

You believe these anti-Catholic lies even though you know the true teaching of the Catholic Church is readily available. Why do you prefer fiction to Truth?

Likos

[dairygirl4u2c]

if they acknowledge abortion isn't per se in the bible, or acknowledge you have to reason and gain insight and listen to elders and a degree of tradition, it's not as i thought you characterized in the first post of the thread.

if your beef is not taking history into consideration enough, i think you could right tag most protestants by far. it's a legit concern. your first post seemed to indicate you thought prots were not taking anything into consideration outside what they thought the bible said at all.
(as to the issue of their taking history into consideration though, i think they're not completely unreasonable. it's been said, and i think rightly so, that the bible is ambiguous, but history is ten times as ambiguous)
(except i'm not sure i'd say that about the eucharist in the CC, which is why i've considered being a catholic who doesn't believe infallibility or a shade of orthodoxy, but am still deciding. i'm unique in that point. which makes your point well... i'm like one in a million and i believe what i do, how sane is that? though many catholics prob believe that, given the stats of what catholcs believe, they just don't articulate it or have reasons)

Edited April 16, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1245866' date='Apr 16 2007, 03:22 PM']if they acknowledge abortion isn't per se in the bible, or acknowledge you have to reason and gain insight and listen to elders and a degree of tradition, it's not as i thought you characterized in the first post of the thread.

if your beef is not taking history into consideration enough, i think you could right tag most protestants by far. it's a legit concern. your first post seemed to indicate you thought prots were not taking anything into consideration outside what they thought the bible said at all.
(as to the issue of their taking history into consideration though, i think they're not completely unreasonable. it's been said, and i think rightly so, that the bible is ambiguous, but history is ten times as ambiguous)
(except i'm not sure i'd say that about the eucharist in the CC, which is why i've considered being a catholic who doesn't believe infallibility or a shade of orthodoxy, but am still deciding. i'm unique in that point. which makes your point well... i'm like one in a million and i believe what i do, how sane is that? though many catholics prob believe that, given the stats of what catholcs believe, they just don't articulate it or have reasons)[/quote]


I am quite clearly talking about sacred oral tradition which involves history of course because it is passed along from one to another throughout history. Catholic teaching in it's elements is contiguous throughtout history. In Protestantism we have some guy stand up in the 1500 stand up and say "SOLA SCRIPTURA" and a bunch of people follow after him. Another guy says "Pre-trib Rapture" in the 1800's and a bunch follow after him. Just two of the thousand or more examples.

I am not just talking history, but history with regard to faith and morals. And the ambiguity is more imagined and created by the likes of Lorainne Boetner, Alexander Hislop, and many others.

You can't be a Catholic and recieve the Eucharist and deny infallibility. Sorry. They will not or should not let you enter the Church.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1245866' date='Apr 16 2007, 03:22 PM']if they acknowledge abortion isn't per se in the bible, or acknowledge you have to reason and gain insight and listen to elders and a degree of tradition, it's not as i thought you characterized in the first post of the thread.

if your beef is not taking history into consideration enough, i think you could right tag most protestants by far. it's a legit concern. your first post seemed to indicate you thought prots were not taking anything into consideration outside what they thought the bible said at all.
(as to the issue of their taking history into consideration though, i think they're not completely unreasonable. it's been said, and i think rightly so, that the bible is ambiguous, but history is ten times as ambiguous)
(except i'm not sure i'd say that about the eucharist in the CC, which is why i've considered being a catholic who doesn't believe infallibility or a shade of orthodoxy, but am still deciding. i'm unique in that point. which makes your point well... i'm like one in a million and i believe what i do, how sane is that? though many catholics prob believe that, given the stats of what catholcs believe, they just don't articulate it or have reasons)[/quote]


I am quite clearly talking about sacred oral tradition which involves history of course because it is passed along from one to another throughout history. Catholic teaching in it's elements is contiguous throughtout history. In Protestantism we have some guy stand up in the 1500 stand up and say "SOLA SCRIPTURA" and a bunch of people follow after him. Another guy says "Pre-trib Rapture" in the 1800's and a bunch follow after him. Just two of the thousand or more examples.

I am not just talking history, but history with regard to faith and morals. And the ambiguity is more imagined and created by the likes of Lorainne Boetner, Alexander Hislop, and many others.

You can't be a Catholic and recieve the Eucharist and deny infallibility. Sorry. They will not or should not let you enter the Church.

[Katholikos]

Dairygirl, you're a long way from home. Here is the Profession of Faith one must make when they are received into the Catholic Church:

[b]"I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God."[/b]

Emphasis on the word [b][i]ALL[/i].[/b]

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1245997' date='Apr 16 2007, 05:38 PM']Dairygirl, you're a long way from home. Here is the Profession of Faith one must make when they are received into the Catholic Church:

[b]"I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God."[/b]

Emphasis on the word [b][i]ALL[/i].[/b][/quote]
Yep. They get the babies to say that when they're baptised.

[thessalonian]

"Trust not in your own understanding" != Anomaly. Okay back to ignore.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1246106' date='Apr 16 2007, 06:56 PM']"Trust not in your own understanding" != Anomaly. Okay back to ignore.[/quote]Thank you. You help me become a better person by being an example of what not to be.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1246125' date='Apr 16 2007, 06:16 PM']Thank you. You help me become a better person by being an example of what not to be.[/quote]


I am sure the board agrees with you. Anomoly, the one man wonder of truth.

Edited April 17, 2007 by thessalonian

[N/A Gone]

Anomaly, I have heard you speak of your background as a catholic educator in order to lend credibility to your words. You do understand that with a comment such as the "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." being for babies that you lose almost all that credibility if someone knows the source.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Revprodeji' post='1246529' date='Apr 16 2007, 10:23 PM']Anomaly, I have heard you speak of your background as a catholic educator in order to lend credibility to your words. You do understand that with a comment such as the "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God." being for babies that you lose almost all that credibility if someone knows the source.[/quote]The point is, that phrase is being misapplied and taken out of context. When, during the Sacraments of Initiation, is that phrase used in the context of this thread and conversation with dairy? Is infant baptism substantially different than the baptism of adults? Baptism isn't just Baptising into the Roman Catholic Church, it is becoming a member of Christ. The Church is fully aware of this.

[quote]1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they]are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82[/quote]It is horrific to me that dairy, or any person who may not be Baptised, believe that they should not or cannot not be Baptised unless they fully believe and agree with everything they 'think' the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Baptism is the foundation of faith and sure grace. It is NOT all the Graces of Initiation or all the Graces of Salvation.
As is typical of religious zealots of whatever denomination, they are more concerned with emphasising what 'isn't' their denomination instead of sharing the beauty of God's Grace being made available.