When Catholic Catechetical Works Don't Teach the Faith

TCR News ^ | December 24, 2003

[bigcat00]

Perhaps my attempt at wit was too obscure. My question was, more or less, "Where in the Bible does it say what books are supposed to be in the Bible?"

If, as you seem to suggest, one should not accept traditional teachings that are not made express and explicit in the Bible, then you have a major problem with the Bible itself, since nowhere within does it say what particular books are supposed to be in the Bible to begin with. Unless, of course, you think the Table of Contents was divinely inspired. But the Bible would then have to say that the Table of Contents was divinely inspired for that idea to have any authority.

In other words, the idea that there is no authority but the Bible is contradicted by the fact that the Bible itself does not say what books are supposed to make up the Bible. Nor does it say anywhere that there "will be no more than 39 books in the Old Testament, and 27 books in the New Testament; 66 books in total."

In fact, any citations from the New Testament about the authority of Scripture could have referred at the time only to the already-existing Hebrew Scriptures and not the New Testament itself, since it did not yet exist.

The point being, of course, that the Bible itself depends on some extra-biblical authority, which undermines your claim that it is the only authority. Or does it say somewhere in the Bible what books are supposed to be in it?

[NYer]

Examples of such illicit catechesis are the “immaculate conception,” “perpetual virginity” and “assumption” of Mary, the mother of Jesus of Nazareth.

You do accept that Mary is the Mother of God, do you not? You do accept that from the cross, Jesus indicated to John that Mary was his mother and to Mary that John was her son, do you not?

You do accept the Ten Commandments, as given by God to Moses, including the one that says: Honor your father and your mother, do you not?

Mary is our mother - your mother! Dave Armstrong's explanation of marian doctrine provides the biblical source you seek.

Consider this: For 2000 years!! the same questions you raise have been discussed amongst theologians. These doctrines were passed down through the ages. Give these great minds some credit.

MOTHER OF GOD

The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 declared Mary the Mother of God (Greek, Theotokos) in order to safeguard the divinity of Christ, which was being attacked by the Nestorians, a heretical group which had recently arisen. Since Christ was God in the flesh (Col 2:9, Jn 1:1,14), Mary is the Mother of God the Son. Both Luther and Calvin (along with all the major Protestant Founders) agreed. But she is a creature, like us, and is not worshiped in Catholicism as a sort of goddess. She is venerated due to the unfathomable honor of having been chosen to bear and raise the incarnate God.

MARY'S IMMACULATE CONCEPTION

Catholics believe that God saved Mary in a special way, preventing her from sin, because of her extraordinary role and proximity to God the Son and Holy Spirit (Lk 1:35). An angel called Mary highly favored or full of grace in Lk 1:28. The Greek word, kecharitomene, means "completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." On this and other grounds, Catholics hold that she was free of sin from conception and throughout her life. Even Luther agreed! The medieval theologians constructed an interesting word-picture to illustrate how Mary was just as saved as we are (Lk 1:47), yet in a different sense. Imagine a pit in a forest path, representing the quagmire of sin. All of us are in that pit, wallowing in the mud. But God will pull us out of it and redeem us, provided we are willing. With Mary, God did something different. He never allowed her (unlike us) to fall into this pit. But in both cases, whether through prevention or rescue, it is equally true that it is God alone who saves. Mary is everything she is due to the unmerited, free grace of God, not because of some intrinsic superiority, regarded as originating separately from God.

ARK, TEMPLE, TABERNACLE, AND MARY

The closer one is to God, the holier one must be (e.g., Ex 3:5, Deut 23:14). God's presence imparts holiness (1 Cor 3:13-17, 1 Jn 3:3-9). The Jewish high priest entered the "Holy of holies" in the Tabernacle or Temple only once a year, under pain of death (Lev 16:2-4,13). The Ark of the Covenant was so holy only a few could touch it (Num 4:15, 2 Sam 6:2-7). Scripture compares Mary to the Ark (Lk 1:35 & Ex 40:34-8 / Lk 1:44 & 2 Sam 6:14-16 / Lk 1:43 & 2 Sam 6:9). If mere inanimate objects can be so "holy" due to proximity with God, how much more so Mary, who bore God? Protestants often have difficulty with this conception because of their faulty view of mere external, "legal" justification, which doesn't necessarily lead to actual, objective holiness.

MARY'S ASSUMPTION

The Assumption is not an arbitrary presumption. It follows from Mary's sinlessness. Since bodily decay results from sin (Ps 16:10, Gen 3:19), the absence of sin allows for instant bodily resurrection at death (i.e., the Assumption). Mary shared (in a secondary, derivative fashion) in her Son's victory over sin, death, and the devil (Heb 2:14-15), as foretold in Gen 3:15. She was the "firstfruits" of Christ's work on our behalf, which will eventually put an end to death and result in all saints having glorious, incorruptible bodies. It was proper and appropriate for Mary - since she was the mother of God the Son - to "prefigure" the redeemed world to come by means of both her Immaculate Conception and Assumption. Scripture speaks of occurrences similar to the Assumption: Enoch (Gen 5:24; cf. Heb 11:5), Elijah (2 Ki 2:11), St. Paul (2 Cor 12:2,4), the so-called "Rapture" (1 Thess 4:15-17), risen saints after Jesus' Crucifixion (Mt 27:52-3). It is illogical and unacceptably dogmatic to assert that an event couldn't have happened because it was not recounted in Scripture. This would be as foolish as saying that Jesus couldn't have done any miracles other than those we find in the Bible (see Jn 20:30, 21:25). If the Assumption is not that radically different from many other occurrences in Scripture, flows from the interrelated theological notions explicitly found there, and is supported by the testimony of early Christian Tradition, it is neither "idolatrous" nor "unbiblical" to believe in it.

THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY

All the Protestant Founders (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) firmly believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity, but some Protestants since have claimed that Jesus had siblings. The Greek word for "brother," adelphos, can and does mean many things in Scripture: nationality (Acts 3:17,22), neighbor (Mt 7:3, 23:8), even all mankind (Mt 25:40). Several other biblical arguments exist also. No one sought to deny this Tradition until the late 4th century, when one Helvidius unsuccessfully tangled with St. Jerome.

MARY OUR SPIRITUAL MOTHER AND INTERCESSOR

The idea of Mary as the Mother of believers is derived most directly from Jn 19:26-7, where Jesus tells St. John from the cross to "behold thy mother." Mary is also Mother and symbol of the Church in Rev 12:1,5,17. Catholics believe that they greatly benefit from Mary's intercession because of her sinlessness (Jas 5:16). Since Mary is incomparably more alive and holy than we are, to ask for her prayers (Rev 5:8, 6:9-10) is good biblically-based "spiritual sense."

[Salvation]

But your Bible is copied from the Bible (canon) approved by Catholics.

Luther just didn't want some books in it because in them -- certain of his assertions were discredited.

We would rather believe the whole Bible (not the part Bible) wo which you adhere.

[NYer]

Excuse me, but where in the Bible does it say what books are supposed to be in the Bible?

The New American Bible

Books of the Bible
in Alphabetical Order

Old Testament Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Tobit Judith Esther 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes

Song of Songs Wisdom Sirach Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Baruch Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi New Testament Matthew Mark Luke

John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation

[Desdemona]

46 books in the Old Testament in the original Catholic Bible. Luther took out a few important ones.

[bigcat00]

Thanks. I know what books are IN the Bible. I'm waiting for Mr. Townsend to tell me where it says in the Bible what books are supposed to be there, since he apparently thinks the Bible (as opposed to Tradition AND the Bible) is the only authority.

[Desdemona]

Ah yes, the list I had to memorize, in order and spelled correctly as a freshman in HS. In a Catholic HS, no less. The entire class promptly forgot the order ten minutes after the exam.

[Salvation]

Oops!

**We would rather believe the whole Bible (not the part Bible) wo which you adhere.**

We would rather believe the whole Bible (not the part Bible) to which you adhere.

[Desdemona]

Luther presented his case to the Vatican at the time and was promptly told he hadn't done his homework.

BTW, the books he took out were actually used by the Hebrews at the time of Jesus - He actually references them - so, I'm less inclined to believe that there was any reason other than Divine Influence that they were included.

[bigcat00]

It seems you have now elevated certain scholars to a level above the Bible itself since they get to decide what books are in the Bible.

So who or what is the ultimate authority? The Bible? Or the scholars who, according to you, get to decide what books are in the Bible? Or just those scholars of "eminent and mature stature?" and not the ones who disagree with them?

But what about Luther? He also didn't think much of the Epistle of James. Does that mean that James shouldn't be in the NT? And how about the point that the books you don't think belong in the OT were part of the Septuagint, which Jesus himself and the NT church used? Good enough for Jesus, but not good enough for you?

[Romulus]

was but one among very many scholars of the inspired Scriptures who unanimously agreed that the apocryphal writings should be excluded from the Old Testament canon.

Given this "unanimity" their presence there is mighty surprising. I reckon you think they let themselves in when nobody was looking, as this would seem to comport with your theory of Holy Scripture as self-authenticating.

[Salvation]

Bumping for more information.