Replies

"All knowledge, all order, all truth and all beauty is not contained within the Bible. The Bible is a reflection of the word and much truth can be found within it. Much knowledge, order, truth and beauty is also contained within Sacred Tradition and within natural revelation, science. I have no problem with referring to the Bible as Sacred Scripture", but it is not God or the Logos. Undue veneration or worship of a book is no different that what Catholics are accused of with respect to objects of sacred art, differing only from the printed word in medium."

The Bible is not one "book". It is the composite of the revealed Word of God in written form identified by believers long before there was such a thing as a RCC. Notice Jesus refers to the Scriptures (Torah, w'Nebiim, w'Kethubim), Paul refers to Scripture (Tim), and Peter refers to many of the letters Paul wrote as Scripture, also. And, the reminder that they are difficult to understand may explain how Rome went awry. Peter cautions that the "unstable & untaught will distort" them to their own destruction. It is evident Rome has done so.

Adhering to the doctrines taught in the Scriptures is neither veneration (as of Mary) nor is it on the same level as the reverence for icons (shroud, bones, bodies, etc), praying to "(S)aints", or any of the other behaviors prohibited by the Scriptures, themselves. The Scriptures are the repository of truths from which we derive the facts. And, Rome is conspicuously absent.

That Rome equates itself, and its disclosures, with the disclosures found in these sacred texts borders on blasphemous. There is nothing in the Scriptural texts which tell us to acknowledge such arrogance with anything other than the disdain you now read.

"It is the composite of the revealed Word of God in written form..."

You are partially correct in that the Bible is a portion of the Revelation. Some Scripture predated the the first Christian Pentecost, but much came later, derived from the verbal accounts of the eye witnesses and resulting from private revelation in the case of St. Paul. Of course St. Paul refers to Scripture, as did Jesus. That the letters of St Paul for a part of Sacred Scripture is not doubted. But what of the preaching of St. Paul not captured in his surviving letters? Or the "many things" referred to by St. John to close his Gospel?

One of the notable differences between Catholics and non-Catholics is that it is the non-Catholics are the ones demanding the exclusion of much of the Revealed Word. They strive to limit the Canon, to exclude the Sacred Tradition and in too many cases to rail against the natural revelation of science. Why do you suppose that is?

Peace bw with you