Let the Bible be “entrusted” to the faithful

La Stampa ^ | April 12, 2013 | Alessandro Speciale

[markomalley]

In his speech to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Pope Francis said “the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church”

The speech given by Francis to members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission this morning followed faithfully in the footsteps of his predecessor Benedict XVI teaching. Members of the Commission – scholars and theologians from all over the world gathered under the leadership of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mgr. Gerhard Müller - concluded a period of reflection on the theme: the inspiration and truth of the Bible. Benedict XVI had drawn attention to this during the 2008 Synod on Sacred Scripture.

The bottom line question revolves around the role of modern disciplines and scientific techniques – textual analysis, palaeographical analysis of texts, archaeological and historical discoveries, philological work on sources and so on – in the Church's interpretation of the Bible. The path outlined by Ratzinger, whilst not underestimating the value of scientific findings, reaffirmed the fact that one cannot truly “understand” the Bible and its texts unless it is through the eyes of faith, in the light of the Church's thousand-year-old history, whilst always taking into account the organic relationship between each of the Bible's books and the Bible as a whole and the message Christians find in it.

Francis clearly echoes this line of thought: “The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is essential to specify the correct relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church,” Francis said during today's audience.

Francis believes the Second Vatican Council reiterated with “great clarity” that there is an unbreakable unity between Scripture and Tradition, as both come from the same source... and are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”

This is why, according to the Pope, every subjective interpretation is insufficient “as simply limited to an analysis incapable of embracing the global meaning that has constituted the Tradition of the entire People of God.” “The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is essential to specify the correct relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church,” Francis added.

At the same time, the Pope guarded against a literal reading of the sacred text, recalling that the Bible “the testimony in written form of God's Word” whereas the “Word of God precedes and exceeds the Bible.” Hence the Christian faith has at its centre not just a book “but a history of salvation and especially a Person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.”

[daniel1212]

Every liberal Protestant church today was once -- some within living memory! -- what you call "evangelical". Today they endorse abortion, homosexuality, and every sort of perversion. How can you prove to me that that's not the inevitable trajectory of /sola scriptura/ Christianity?

Every liberal Catholic and Catholic parish today was once -- some within living memory! -- what you call "traditional." Today those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death (like Teddy K.) endorse abortion, homosexuality, etc. etc. And by so doing what Rome teaches by example speaks louder and more effectually than by her words.

How can you prove to me that that's not the inevitable trajectory of /sola scriptura/ Christianity?

Because they can have separated from both dead religion and liberal revisionism, and the evangelical movement began in response such revisionism, and which Rome evidences even in sanctioned Bible scholarship within your own official Bible (for America).

And unlike RCs who are stuck with the liberal majority of their members, we can separate, and so those who hold to the basic historical Protestant convictions on the Bible can and will continue to obey he command to "be ye separate, and touch not the unclean.." (2Cor. 6:17) And which class (if a remnant, as are conservative RCs), such show more concurrence in basic moral views and questions about core teachings than Catholics overall, and experience a remarkable unity of the Spirit that transcends denominations. Thus they are feared and attacked by both Rome and liberals.

Even your allegedly "conservative" evangelical churches, without exception, permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, among other objectively immoral acts

Not all do, while any allowance for divorce can only be for fornication and possibly abandonment, (Mt. 19:9; 1Cor. 7:15) yet the Bible nowhere teaches that any consummated marriage contract was not a marriage, and the broad criteria for annulments potentially leaves many Catholics as living in fornication.

Nor does Scripture make celibacy a requirement to be a bishop/elder, among many contrasts btwn Rome and the NT church.

Meanwhile, those Rome treats as members in life and in death support and have more abortions than evangelicals, as well as other objectively immoral acts, and are not too far behind in practicing contraception. This is what Rome effectually fosters, regardless of her token conservative words. It is when liberal RCs become conservative evangelicals that real concern is shown for their souls, as now they are a threat to Rome's preeminence.

However, i will allow that modern evangelicals overall missed the boat on contraception, partly due to overreaction to the past idea that even marital relations were unclean (as some "CFs" held) and what flowed from that, as well as ignorance that they can act as abortifacients (and i now see Firefox does not even have that word in its spell check dictionary) and which needs to be corrected.

Yet this do not prevent evangelicals from being against contraception in concurring with classic Protestant views, and it is a direction i (and even the NY Times ) see many moving towards.

A evangelical book on the subject and which is even recommended by a Catholic org (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100804) is The Christian Case against Contraception , by Bryan C. Hodge

If you are going to marry, i would advise being like Old-Order Amish communities in which all types of artificial birth control are forbidden, but not go so far as to reject any varieties of natural family planning.

There is a principle in Scripture in which their are consequences to physical pleasure which require responsibility and temperance, and to try to have you cake and eat it too will have negative consequences.

And on a side note, the use of contraception among consevatives overall likely cost them the last election.

[daniel1212]

Please see this response rather than the previous.

Every liberal Protestant church today was once -- some within living memory! -- what you call "evangelical". Today they endorse abortion, homosexuality, and every sort of perversion. How can you prove to me that that's not the inevitable trajectory of /sola scriptura/ Christianity?

Every liberal Catholic parish today was once -- some within living memory! -- what you call "traditional." And today those whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death (like Teddy K.) endorse abortion, homosexuality, etc. etc. And by so doing what Rome teaches by example speaks louder and more effectually than by her words. "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. " (James 2:18)

How can you prove to me that that's not the inevitable trajectory of /sola scriptura/ Christianity?

Because they can and have separated from both dead religion and liberal revisionism, and the evangelical movement began in response such revisionism, and which Rome evidences even in sanctioned Bible scholarship within your own official Bible (for America).

And unlike RCs who are stuck with the liberal majority of their members, we can separate, and so those who hold to the basic historical Protestant convictions on the Bible can and will continue to obey the command to "be ye separate, and touch not the unclean.." (2Cor. 6:17)

And which class (if a remnant, as are conservative RCs), such show more concurrence in basic moral views and questions about core teachings than Catholics overall, and experience a remarkable unity of the Spirit that transcends denominations. Thus they are feared and attacked by both Rome and liberals.

Even your allegedly "conservative" evangelical churches, without exception, permit divorce and remarriage, contraception, among other objectively immoral acts

I challenge you to show where evangelicals favor "other objectively immoral acts" more than Catholics. As for divorce, not all do, such as the Protestant Reformed Churches in America, which believes that marriage is a lifelong bond and that, although an individual may divorce his or her spouse for continued infidelity, the marriage bond is not dissolved apart from death. Hence, neither party is permitted to remarry while the other person is still living. Those who do divorce and remarry while their first spouse is still alive are considered adulterers, regardless of the circumstances of the divorce. (Source ) Any allowance for divorce can only be for fornication and possibly abandonment, (Mt. 19:9; 1Cor. 7:15) and RC "Pauline Privilege" and Petrine Privilege can be interesting). and there are over eight million divorced and remarried Catholics in the US.

Yet the Bible nowhere teaches that any consummated marriage contract was not a marriage, and the broad criteria for annulments (over 60,00 in the US) potentially leaves many Catholics as living in fornication.

Nor does Scripture make celibacy a requirement to be a bishop/elder, among many contrasts btwn Rome and the NT church.

Meanwhile, those whom Rome treats as members in life and in death both support and have more abortions than evangelicals, as well as support other objectively immoral acts, and are not too far behind in practicing contraception. This is what Rome effectually fosters, regardless of her token conservative words. It is when liberal RCs become conservative evangelicals that real concern is shown for their souls, as now they are a threat to Rome's preeminence.

However, i will allow that modern evangelicals overall missed the boat on contraception, partly due to overreaction to the past idea that even marital relations were unclean (as some "CFs" held) and what flowed from that, as well as ignorance that they can act as abortifacients (and i now see Firefox does not even have that word in its spell check dictionary) and which needs to be corrected.

Yet this does not prevent evangelicals from being against contraception in concurring with classic Protestant views, and it is a direction i (and even the NY Times ) see many moving towards.

A evangelical book on the subject and which is even recommended by a Catholic org (http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/100804) is The Christian Case against Contraception , by Bryan C. Hodge

If one are going to marry, i would advise being like Old-Order Amish communities in which all types of artificial birth control are forbidden, but not go so far as to reject any varieties of natural family planning.

There is a principle in Scripture in which their are consequences to physical pleasure which require responsibility and temperance, and to try to have you cake and eat it too will have negative consequences.

And on a side note, the use of contraception among consevatives overall likely cost them the last election.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, aMPU, the fact is I didn't MISS the whole point of your article: actually, I mostly agreed with it . That's why I went on to make a whole rootin-tootin 'nother point of my own :o) But let me comment now on your good points:

"Scripture preserves God’s truth from drift into all kinds of foolish pagan practices."

Absolutely true. That's why the preservation, collection, translation, publication, interpretation and proclamation of Scripture has always been the vital concern the Church. It's been one of the Church's principle tasks over the past 20 centuries. That's why any of us is able to have a Bible in his hands to this very day. Phenomenal, isn't it?

"It prevents what happens when Scripture is discounted and any leader can make up new traditions - even ones that didn't exist during the first one hundred years of Church history - and you end up with a situation where anything becomes tradition that invalidates the Word of God for the sake of traditions."

Absolutely true once again. This preoccupation we have with Scripture HAS prevented erroneous teachers from making up new traditions which invalidate the Word of God.

If you look at the 21 Ecumenical Councils, for instance, beginning with the Council of Jerusalem as reported in Acts, you will see that these Councils protected the Church by striking down erroneous traditions. Note that many of these heresies were being promoted by dissenting clergy and had hundreds of thousands of enthusiastic followers. But the Church had to battle these wolves-in-shepherds'-clothing and reinforce the unchanged Faith as handed down to us by the Apostles.

Extend this Chart all the way down to the 20th century: the Church has always had to face and combat the roar of dissenting voices, the "Spirit of the Age," the exceedingly popular heresies.

“As evidence consider the state of protestant theology in the US at present (or Europe for that matter ). If you look at raw numbers well over 60% now teach either abortion or same sex marriage are perfectly ok and its growing rapidly.”

Exactly. They have their own conferences every couple of years or every decade or so, not to refute the heresies, but to adopt them. (Who knows what the Episcopalians will come up with next??)

"As evidence consider the state of the Roman Church worldwide, where regardless of what the church teaches, a huge number of members use birth control, get abortions and are perfectly ok with same sex marriage."

This is where you need to take another look, because this is not evidence for your claim, but counter-evidence. Namely, here you're dealing with a Church which still has its pure doctrine -- FOR the truths of Scripture, AGAINT birth control, AGAINST abortions, AGAINST the deconstruction of sex, gender and marriage --- and still has to fight the usual opponents, i.e. dissenting clergy and their millions of enthusiastic supporters.

Today the heresies center, not on the nature of God, but on the nature of Man. The dispute isn't about whether Christ had a human nature, but whether "human nature" even exists.

Find another Church which hasn't given in, hasn't changed its doctrines to accommodate serial polygamy (divorce/remarriage), onanism (contracepted sex), sodomy (perverted sex acts, whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals), infanticide (abortion, even in the so-called "hard cases"). Find me another Church with clear-cut doctrines against human embryo experimentation and manipulation; against alternative reproductive technologies; against euthanasia and the intentional programming of death.

Well?

And I still like you too ;oD

[aMorePerfectUnion]

daniel212,

Really nice post. Often on FR, the number of “protestant” denominations is bandied about as if that disproves something. Your post lays out clearly that separation from cancer leads away from error and toward truth.

Instead of continually institutionalizing the accretion of errors, rites, continually adding new “authoritative traditions”, pagan practices, etc., it is far, far better to pursue Christ in purity and simplicity, and often this involves separation.

I will readily admit, some churches have split over silly issues - and I don’t believe they honored God. Most splits appear to be over theological issues.

[wonkowasright]

This condemnation, indeed, seems to have been providentially promulgated as though with a special view to the fraud of those who, contriving to dress up a heresy under a name other than its own, get hold often of the works of some ancient writer, not very clearly expressed, which, owing to the very obscurity of their own doctrine, have the appearance of agreeing with it, so that they get the credit of being neither the first nor the only persons who have held it. This wickedness of theirs, in my judgment, is doubly hateful: first, because they are not afraid to invite others to drink of the poison of heresy; and secondly, because with profane breath, as though fanning smouldering embers into flame, they blow upon the memory of each holy man, and spread an evil report of what ought to be buried in silence by bringing it again under notice

St. Vincent Lerin 300's.... as it was in the beginning is now...Nothing ever changes does it.....Thanks for the additional Augustine quotes...

[aMorePerfectUnion]

OK, first, I’m glad we are friends, though disagreeing on some things, but agreeing on many, many things. :-)

“Namely, here you’re dealing with a Church which still has its pure doctrine — FOR the truths of Scripture, AGAINT birth control, AGAINST abortions, AGAINST the deconstruction of sex, gender and marriage -— and still has to fight the usual opponents, i.e. dissenting clergy and their millions of enthusiastic supporters.”

I will only respond in this way...

What good is it to pretend that most members actually believe and are Christians, when they WIDELY reject the teaching of the church in practice? .

What results is truth mixed with heresy and pagan practice that becomes a buffet. You can argue that the Church is teaching many truths, but if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it fall - or rather, the fall of the tree is ignored not only by the whole world, but by the very membership it claims - what difference does it make?

To whit (always wanted to say that)...

In my local area, I attend a local church that has grown from about 5,000 members who show up every weekend to worship God, and serve others all week to more than 13,000 members who do the same. That membership number includes 5 churches planted during the past 7 years. Most of these people began life far from God, failed, were invited by a friend to come, were welcomed and accepted, attended, came to a point where they entrusted themselves to Christ for salvation, decided to follow him and want to honor him with their lives. In other words, these are not just people who showed up here from other churches. These are tattooed, worldly people, much like those Christ came to heal, and like those mentioned in the Bible, see their failure and deep need and WANT HIM.

I write none of that to say big is better, etc. Just to contrast with what follows...

My neighbors, nice couple we do things socially with and enjoy, who are sincere Roman Catholics, and I believe are true believers, go to a local church that has a “membership roll” of about 2600 - the vast majority of who never show up at church (about 300 show up) - let alone weekly, but are counted as members. Again, nothing wrong with the number, but with the impact in members lives. As this local RC church shrinks, I have to ask, does it have a pulse? If it is not growing, is it really alive with His new life? I simply do not know the answers. I am raising questions only.

Now, for the Round Robin Quick Round:

“Find another Church which hasn’t given in, hasn’t changed its doctrines to accommodate serial polygamy (divorce/remarriage)”

I find “annulment for so many reasons after exchanging vows to be identical in practical terms to divorce/remarriage. Say what you will about what the Church believes, I don’t find it in the lives of the majority of the membership. Heck, you can find lots of RCs around the world shacking up after divorce. So, yea, teaching is great, but if it doesn’t lead people to abandon their own worthiness by works, entrust themselves to His Gospel of Grace alone, and live a changed life, you are talking about abortion of the truth.

“contraception”

Some I would accept, some I would reject. Bigger conversation.

“sodomy (perverted sex acts, whether by homosexuals or heterosexuals),”

Again, culturally, it appears RC members have largely come to accept this - at least in surveys. Mainline Protestant churches (that are shrinking and merging to share expenses), seem to accept it. Evangelicals that are true to His Word do not. Admittedly, you can probably find some members of every church that accept cultural norms. To the degree that members do not know His Word and accept it as the Word of God, is the degree to which they believe whatever feels good.

“infanticide -abortion, even in the so-called “hard cases”

Same.

“Find me another Church with clear-cut doctrines against human embryo experimentation and manipulation; against alternative reproductive technologies; against euthanasia and the intentional programming of death.”

Sure. BUT, show me a membership that actually lives out that teaching. Teaching is great. If it doesn’t make disciples who have learned “to obey all I commanded you”, may I ask what difference it is making? THAT was the Great and Final Commission Christ commanded. The Church must preserve the truth, but it isn’t to be a time capsule. It is to make disciples.

Now, please realize I am not JUST saying this about the Roman Church. I would say the identical things about ANY Church, if they are true but you are asking specifically about the Roman Church.

As an add on here at the end, I have to note that I disagree with some of your explanations. I find plenty of examples of Catholic practice that adopted/adapted pagan practice and made it into accepted tradition. Let’s set that aside.

So... there’s your well, my friend.

ampu

[Salvation]

The truth:

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

Let the Bible be “entrusted” to the faithful
But Seriously — Who Holds the Bible’s Copyright?

Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ
Apostolic Authority and the Selection of the Gospels (Ecumenical)
The Bible - 73 or 66 Books? (Ecumenical Thread)
How Rediscovering the “Plot” of Sacred Scripture is Essential to Evangelization
The Word of God is a Person Not Merely a Text
Are Catholics into the Bible?
Are the Gospels Historical?
What is Biblical Prophecy? What Biblical Prophecy is NOT, and What It Really IS
Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

[Mrs. Don-o]

" Paul told us to hold fast to the traditions that have been taught (past tense)... not be followers of 'tradition' that would occur centuries into the future..."

The Catholic Church's doctrines are not traditions invented or manufactured centuries into the future.

We do, as Paul commanded, "stand fast, and hold the traditions" ---capital-T "Traditions" ---which we have received from Apostolic teachings. E.g., the Nicene Creed, a capital-T Tradition which summarizes, interprets and applies the teachings we have from the Apostles.

The Scriptures are a major part of this: written Tradition. Paul said to observe what they wrote, what they preached, and their example.

Now, think of this. Christ taught His disciples for 40 days between His Resurrection and His Ascension into heaven. But we don't have 40 more books, 40 chapters, or even 40 sentences about this teaching. St. John the Evangelist says if it all were written down, the earth itself would not be big enough to hold all the books.

But (see John, Chapters 14-16 especially) Christ did say that that "the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things ... will remind you of everything I have said to you ...will testify about me...He will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

This was Christ's promise to us. If we look to what the earliest Christians preached and practiced, we will see truths that came, not from them,but from the Holy Spirit, Who has always been with Christ's Church.

Scripture calls the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the Truth." The Church's doctrines do not negate the truths of Scripture, but rather defend, interpret, and apply them.

"Peter taught us that we don't bow down to an apostle or any religious figure..."

Right: we are to adore nobody other than God. This doesn't exclude showing honor to others. Scripture itself shows people bowing down to, even prostrating before, angels, and honored visitors, Moses, Saul, David, their own parents --- and not sinfully, but with the approval of God Check out 200+ Biblical examples here (Link)

Although we are to "adore" only God, they understood that we may "honor" other human beings, especially those who represent God's authority over us.

Jesus' warnings about pride did not mean that nobody should wear a robe, or that nobody should sit in the front, but that people should not be motivated by personal prestige. They should not love honors, even if they rightfully receive them. Jesus said:

Luke 11:43
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces."

I've never seen any church of any sort that didn't have the preacher or pastor in the front of the room, or that didn't greet him respectfully. But they are not to love prestige.

"Paul taught us that the churches are the people who are the members of the 'Body', not the leadership..."

[I presume you mean not "just" the leadership!]Yes, that's right: the Church is the people of God. That's what Catholics are taught.

"Paul taught us that a Bishop has to have a wife and a good family..."

'Has to"? Interesting. Did Paul have a wife? (For that matter, did Jesus?) No. So presumably a leader of the Church, if he were married should be the husband of only one wife, and children who were well-raised. It doesn't mean they HAD TO have a wife. Paul himself repeatedly recommended remaining unmarried (Link).

"Paul taught us that homosexuals are not to be honored in the churches...And certainly would not be acceptable as Bishops or Elders or Pastors..."

The Catholic Church teaches this too.

"So this raises the question...Have all of the Catholic Parishes rejected and distanced themselves from every homosexual religious leader since the time of the apostles to the present??? "

No. In these cases, people had the true Catholic doctrine, and -- because of their slackness or rebellion --- failed to follow it. This is sin: they dissent or depart from what Christ teaches us through the Catholic Church!

Christ told us that there will be tares growing amidst the wheat until the end of time, when the Angels will come and separate the to, and cast the tares into the fire to be burned.

No one should use this as a reason to attack the Church itself. It would be like abandoning the Lord and the Apostles, because most of the Apostles betrayed, denied, or abandoned Him. Yes, they sinned. And yes, they were the Lord's select men. And they--- other than Judas --- later repented and led His flock.

That's the drama of the Church through the centuries, over and over again: betrayal, denial, sin; repentance, restoration, redemption.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Check this out. It's fun! It's a heat-seeksing missile! It's Michael Voris! (Link)

[daniel1212]

Thank God. This is relevant to that as is this and this .

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“The Catholic Church’s doctrines are not traditions invented or manufactured centuries into the future. “

Well, not all. Just many. Just find that stuff during the Church’s first 100 years of life. If you find it in that timeframe, I will concede it is a tradition - not equal to inspired Scripture, but able to inform practice. That is plenty of time to see if there were any traditions being passed along.

... when they don’t show up for 300 years or more, it is silliness to claim they are not made up out of whole cloth and pagan roots.

[daniel1212]

Tradition preserves the same and constant interpretation. Tradition was commanded by scripture itself.

The problem is that Tradition can also and has also preserved error. Indeed tradition has a place, as even in SS there is a Scriptural tradition on interpretation, but the problem is when amorphous oral tradition is made equal with Scripture - which is the only source that is wholly inspired of God - under an autocratic entity that has defined herself as assuredly infallible and alone being the supreme authority (sola ecclesia) .

Then traditions which are not reliant upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation become perpetuated doctrines, yet another sola ecclesia church can understands what tradition teaches differently.

"The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church... — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

Under SS and SE you have schisms and division, as well as basic unity, and the question is what basis for unity is Scriptural.

The church did not begin under the premise of assured infallibility, but in dissent from those who, like Rome, magisterially presumed more that is written, and instead established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. For of such is the kingdom of God. (1Cor. 4:20)

[Mrs. Don-o]

aMPU, let me just give a quick response for right now --- because I have to get my raised beds constructed before it rains again --- and I'll get back at'cha with the whole Mishnah and Megillah later.

Most of what you're saying here, is that it's a damn shame that

• Catholic teachers don't teach Catholicism effectively enough
• Catholic behavior doesn't conform to Catholic teaching enough, and
• in sum, the problem with Catholics is that they aren't Catholic enough.

And to that I say, "Amen, Brother!"

Substitute the word "Christian" (or Bible-church, or Presbyterian, or Evangelical, or What-have-you) for "Catholic", and to that I say, "Amen x5."

Have a nice afternoon. Bigger missive coming!

[Salvation]

Many traditions are put forth in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. Here is just the first chapter. Need I continue? Or would you like to re-read Acts and pick out the practices that were carried out then, whether by word, or by person or a combination of both?

Acts 1:8 -- tradition of preaching

 

8

But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama'ria and to the end of the earth."

 

Acts 1: 14 -- tradition of praying together

 

14

All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

 

Acts: 1:15-26 -- tradition of Peter as the leader and the tradition of apostolic succession

 

15

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
16	"Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.
17	For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
18	(Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
19	And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel'dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20	For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and `His office let another take.'
21	So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22	beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us -- one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."
23	And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab'bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi'as.
24	And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
25	to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place."
26	And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi'as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The fact that something didn't "show up" for 300 years or more (e.g. the Nicene Creed) doesn't mean it wasn't taught, believed, and lived for 300 years. Most of what "shows up" is just confirmation, clarification and documentation for stuff that was the belief and practice of the Churches since the first century AD.

For instance, just because the words "Incarnation" and "Trinity" don't appear until a couple of centuries later, doesn't mean that nobody believed in the Incarnation or the Trinity until, say, 325 AD.

BTW, do you believe in the Incarnation of Christ, and the Trinity?

[Salvavida]

How very democrat of you to hurl insults, rather than argue from an academic position.

[Salvavida]

Appreciate your thoughts, but the verses you cite are those supporting the very basic methodology of discipleship regarding "modeling" Christ in front of those being discipled. The manner is which you exegete a text if far different from orthodox Christianity. R. Zuck is a great resource for this if you want to know what the arguments are.

But thank you just the same.

[Salvation]

Catholicism is orthodox Christianity!

Where are you getting the information you seem to want to post?

Someone who hates Catholics?

A pamplet or two?

A comic book?

[Salvation]

I asked questions. Is that so wrong?

You seemed to put yourself on an even keel with Pope Francis with the words, “No sale, Francis.”

Hence my questions about your position.

Please don’t make the thread about me by saying things I didn’t say or do.

[Salvavida]

and we have 20,000 or so "denominations" to show how well that works....

I know nothing of 20K denominations you mention. But I'd rather side with liberty and free debate over hermaneutical issues, than have people drowned and burnt at the stake because they didn't subscribe to a central authority telling them what Scripture says. And it worked out quite well for the establishment of this country, in searching for a place to freely worship God as an act of conscience, and not by obligation.