This is an exchange that took place on the Protestant homeschooling forum I hang out on. I wanted it for my files and well…this blog is pretty much it. ~ RNW
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RNW
I beg your pardon!? If that was the case the CCC would not explicitly encourage the reading of Sacred Scripture.
|
|
Originally Posted by [John]
But you cannot interpret it for yourself so why read it. Prior to the Vatican II it was a sin for you to read the scriptures.
|
I would be very interested in seeing where this was the case. I do know that there were some priests who said things like this to the faithful in their care. Just like I know that some priests TODAY tell their faithful that abortion is ok. That some priests are not faithful to the magisterium. Some on purpose. Some through a misguided zealousness. Is not relevant to the official teaching of the church. In fact, church history and current church practice shows a deep reverance for Sacred Scripture.
That Catholics kept the Bible chained in churches is often thrown about as an accusation. As proof that the RCC did, with malice (after all why the chain!?) conspire to keep the Bible from the lay people. In fact, the chain was to keep the Bible for the lay people. Books, all books, before the invention of the printing press were expensive. Bibles, often adorned with costly artwork and precious gems, were even more so. Even the plainest of manuscripts were outrageously expensive. They were chained in the church to make them available to the laity, not to keep it from them. Pious wealthy men and women would frequently leave funds in their wills in order to make copies of the Sacred Scripture available in such a manner.
Contrary to what is popularly asserted, the RCC authorized many translations of Sacred Scripture in many lanugages including English before Wycliffe and Tyndale and the faithful were encouraged to read them. What the RCC objected to in the translations of Wycliffe and Tyndale and others was not that the translations were in the vernacular but rather the accuracy of those translations. And it was the private interpretation of scripture that caused so much difficulty both in France with respect to the Waldenses and Albigenses and again with respect to the various Protestants factions, that so alarmed the RCC.
The RC Mass is from beginning to end, almost a continuous recitation of Sacred Scripture. I believe someone else has posted a link which shows this, so I will not repeat it here. The pulpit from which Sacred Scripture is read is reserved for ONLY the reading of Scripture and homilies related to it. Announcements and the like are made from another part of the church out of respect for Sacred Scripture. In the processional at the beginning of Mass, the cross leads. This is to show that the sacrifice of Jesus is the most important thing. Then comes someone holding a copy of Sacred Scripture high for all to see…to show….that we must always be led by Sacred Scripture. Sunday Massed have at least four passages of scripture read aloud….so that we can be in a very literal sense “hearers of the Word”. The readings usually consist of a reading from the Old Testament which connects directly to the Gospel reading. A reading from the New Testament. One from the Psalms. Finally, a gospel reading. The congregation stands during the reading of the Gospel because it contains the words of Our Lord himself and the events of His life.
|
Originally Posted by RNW
I find myself dangerously close to believing that you are deliberately misrepresenting the teaching of the Catholic Church since you appear to be far better acquainted with the CCC that you originally led us to believe. I had hoped that the passages quoted out of context where simply regurgitation from the various anti-Catholic websites out there. I really don’t want to believe that about a brother in Christ. Perhaps, this was another attempt at a joke? In which case, I must tell you that I find this sort of “humor” to sting. Perhaps more than you intended.
|
|
Originally Posted by [John]
There is no joke here. No humor in my reply to [X]. I did not quote any passage out of context. I made no editorial comments on them. I simply cut and pasted them. Most of you said I was way off base. It is your doctrine not mine. I have not misrepresented the Catholic Church. I do not represent the Catholic church at all. I just put down a few things that it has espoused.
|
Well I guess we will have to disagree here. To assert on one hand (by your editorial comment) that a particular passage says that only Popes and Bishops etc. can read the Sacred Scripture but fail to note that the CCC specifically exhorts the faithful to read scripture regularly seems a bit out of context to me.
The quote the beginning of one paragraph of the CCC but fail to not that the rest of the paragraph adds significantly to the overall meaning seems “out of context.”
I wonder why it ok for you to assert that when I quote Our Lord in Matthew 19:17 “If you wish to enter into life,
keep the commandments.” as evidence that there is more to salvation than sola fide. You say “it’s out of context.” (Even though we also quote many other passages of scripture to show that in the broad context of scripture (James 2:24; James 2:26; Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13:2; John 14:15; we DO think it is in context.)
So yes. Your interpretation is “out of context” just as you have repeated asserted the RC interpretation is “out of context.” Saying “it is not” will not make it true for me any more than me saying “No it’s not.” will make it true for you. I contend that perhaps we will have to leave it in the hands of those who read what you quote from the CCC and the response by those like [x] who say you left out the REST of the paragraph/passage which says….to decide whether or not you were truly as faithful to the spirit of the CCC as you contend you were attempting to be.
|
Originally Posted by RNW
You of course are free to believe that. But we do know that sin keeps us hearing the leading of the Lord clearly in our lives. An individual believer is like a single cell in the body. It can’t do everything. St. Paul makes it clear we NEED each other.
|
|
Originally Posted by [John]
You make assertions like this and then you do not back them up. Where does Paul say we need eachother to interpret the Bible?
|
Did you have a question? Did you perhaps mean to say something like this “Red Neck Woman, I am sorry but I have never seen that in scripture. Could you please show me from scripture why you make this assertion?”
“Why yes [John], I would be happy to show you why I believe that. I am sorry that I assumed that the context of my argument would make that clear, but on reflection I see that some of what I meant to say remained in my head.”
What I was referring to here was 1 Corinthians 12 in which St. Paul refers to the church as a body with different parts that are all dependent on each other. I believe that while he did not specifically mention Biblical interpretation as something that one part of the body would do for the other that it is not stretching to think that the gift of teaching would include that.
|
Originally Posted by RNW
If we are interpreting for our self and we get it wrong….what mechanism is there to bring us back to the Truth?
|
|
Originally Posted by [John]
The Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is God. He lives within the believer. He will lead us back but we have to follow. He will not force us back |
Yes the HS lives within the Believer. But as St. Paul shows that the HS does not gift each of us equally. I think both of us have seen examples where sin or pride or arrogance stop the ears of someone to the action of the HS.
|
Originally Posted by RNW
is certainly capable, but what if in our pride, our arrogance, or other sin our ears are stopped up?
|
|
Originally Posted by [John]
My answers in blue in the previous quote by Red Neck Woman
|
|
Originally Posted by RNW
Furthermore, the Catholics on this forum have shown, from Sacred Scripture, why we believe that Jesus gave authority to the Apostles. Why we believe that authority was passed down, and why we believe it exists in the Catholic church today.
I wonder why if the individual believer was sufficient unto himself, that Jesus built a church at all? |
|
Originally Posted by [John]
Yes I agree you have shown why you think the apostles had authority and passed it down. I have, where I have seen it, rebutted it. There is no apostolic authority passed down. There is no apostolic succession needed. The authority is in the word of God which trumps every apostle and every tradition. That is why God gave it to us.
One of our fundamental disagreements is what the church is. If you look at it as I do you see that all believers make up the church. The church cannot survive without the Bible but the Bible has survived without the Church. |
I have highlighted the particular passage that I am referring to.
That is simply without historical foundation. The early church had only pieces of the Sacred Scripture and the canon of the NT was not set until sometime in the 390’s (I saw [another forum poster] disputed the date I used earlier whichh was 398, I believe she said 392. ) Most scholars put the writing of the gospels within the the years of the survival of the witnesses of the events but nonetheless many years after the death of Jesus. Yet the church grew without the Bible. It grew and such a threat that it was persecuted by the Roman authorities and the Jewish ones alike. Ironically, it was to establish which documents were actually sacred scripture (and thus were so important that it was incumbant upon the believer to die rather than hand them over to authorities) and which were not (and so could be handed over without peril to one’s immortal soul.) than the canon was established. Yet, to that time. Few if any churches would have had every part of the NT canon. Most had only a few.
|
Originally Posted by RNW
This is circular. Why would the HS speak more clearly to the individual? I think this speaks to the purpose of the Church established by Jesus. Does the Church exist to shepherd the believer? (IMO I believe that it does.) Or does is it the role of the believer to direct the Church? (I don’t think so.)
|
|
Originally Posted by [John]
God leads the church through the men he sets up as pastors. This is done through local called out assemblies. Which is what church means.
|
Yep. We call this Apostolic Authority. Because the Apostles called out leaders, who handed off authority to the next, who prayfully considered the next……
|
Originally Posted by RNW
I think this is a perfect example of one of your other objections below. That God is not bound by His Sacraments. God has put in place His perfect plan and it is BEST if we operate within that plan. Nonetheless, He can and does accomplish blessing outside of that plan. He has put in place the Church…One Church. THAT was the plan. We are MOST blessed when we operate within that plan. I believe that the Truth in it’s fullness is most perfectly practiced within the RCC. The HS can and does operate in those places that have separated themselves from the One Church. The HS spirit can and does lead individuals. Nevertheless, there is a special leading. A special blessing to be found in the originally planned way.
|
|
Originally Posted by [John]
I get it that God is soverign and that you think he will and does work outside of the sacrements. But that is saying there is more than one way of salvation. Jesus said I am THE way THE truthe and THE life NO MAN comes to the Father BUT BY ME!!! John 14:6 (emphasis added). There is no other way. God has bound himself to his everlasting word. He is the same yesterday today and forever. There is no hope or hope of salvation outside of Christ alone. No sacrements, no Pope, no Mary, no saints, no baptism, no Eucharist, no penance, no last rites, no confession, no confirmation, no tradition, only Jesus Christ. Jesus is GOD why would you need anything more? I say again if God works outside of what how he has perscribed within and only within the pages of the Bible I want nothing to do with that God. But he does not and he will not. That is his promise.
|
|
Originally Posted by RNW
No. What the CCC is saying is that there is a perfect plan. God will ALWAYS honor his Word but that there might be MORE to the plan than we know or need to know. If we were to know with certainty that those who had never heard of Jesus were not in danger of losing their immortal soul, might we not take the Great Commission with less seriousness? God doesn’t need to tell us everything, only what we need to know for US. We know God works through the Sacraments. He said so. (Where? Again you make an assertion without backing it up with scripture. You cannot quote God extemporaneously.) But the circumstances on how He works outside of them, are His alone to know the details.
|
Again…did you have a question? We perhaps you trying to ask me “RNW, I do not see why you believe from scripture that God works through the Sacraments? Would you please show me where, in your understanding, you see evidence for that?”
“Why certainly [John], I am sorry. I thought our previous scriptural references had addressed this question. Nevertheless, I will be happy to do it again for you now.”
The Sacrament of Baptism: John 3:5; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; Romans 6:4; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:20-21
Mark 16:16 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.
These are the words of Jesus and clearly He doesn’t make it an option.
Acts 2:38 Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
Somehow, some way baptism is tied up in the forgiveness of sins.
The Sacrament of Confirmation: Acts 19:5-6; Acts 8:14-17; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Ephesians 1:13; Hebrews 6:2
For example in Acts 19:5-6 Paul, having received his Apostolic authority, laid hands on the believers and they received the HS. The RCC textbook definition of a sacrament is that it is an outward or physical sign of God’s grace. God worked THROUGH the laying on of hands. Bingo. Sacrament.
The Sacrament of Reconciliation (aka Confession): Matthew 9:2-8; John 20:19-23; 2 Corinthians 5:17-20; James 5:13-17; Matthew 18:18
I find this passage to be particularly clear. John 19: 20-23 “On the evening of that first day of the week, when
the doors were locked, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, “Peace be with you.” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 (Jesus) said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.’”
Again Jesus power of forgiveness exercised THROUGH the Apostles and through the apostolic authority passed down through them. Jesus sent the Apostles “As the Father sent him”….Jesus primary mission was the forgiveness of sins.
Look at the power of the prayers of the Presbysters (priests) in James 5:13-16….”If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.”
The Sacrament of Healing: Mark 6:12-13; James 5:14-15
The Sarament of Holy Orders: Acts 20:28; Luke 22:19; John 20:22; Acts 6:6; Acts 13:3; Acts 14:22; 1 Timothy 4:14: 2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5
The Sacrament of Marriage: Matthew 19:5-6; Mk 10:7-12; Ephesians 5:22-32; Hebrews 13:4
In particular Matthew 19:6 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” God works through the sacrament of marriage to create a bond.
The Sacrament of the Eucharist: all of John 6; Mark 14:22-24; 1 Corinthians 10:14-17; 1 Corinthians 11:23-29; Matthew 26:26-28; Luke 22: 17-20: Luke 24:30-35.
In particular: John 6:53-57 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats * my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
Which points out Jesus working through the Eucharist as FOOD.
|
Originally Posted by [John]
God has told us all that we need to know. It is in the Bible. It is for all of mankind. Wheather he lives in the bush, jungle or New York City. Man has ignored and perverted the word of God. See Romans 1.
|
Would you please show me the scripture reference that contains the table of contents. The NT canon is itself a Tradition. The same men that were so inspired by God as to determine what was and what was not Holy Scripture also taught that the Body and Blood were not symbolic, that there was Apostolic Authority, etc. Why do you accept their “Table of Contents” but not what they said it meant?
|
Originally Posted by RNW
Out of curiousity. Did you bother to look at the scriptural footnotes in the CCC? They are extensively footnoted to scripture.
|
|
Originally Posted by [John]
No I did not. Should not the Catechism speak for itself? It is authoritative according to [another Catholic poster].
|
And as [another Catholic poster] said in response, I say that the scriptural footnotes are an integral part of the CCC. That you have decided that the CCC must speak for itself without scripture is your conclusion.
|
Originally Posted by Red Neck Woman
But the sentiment expressed by Jesus IS relevant. The CCC is only saying that as Christians we trust in the mercy of Our Lord who DID express those sentiments. Whether or not He has shown us the details of His plan for these precious souls, we are confident that because He does love them that they will be dealt with in a loving way.
|
|
Originally Posted by [John]
God has shown us all of the details in the Bible.
|
1 Corinthians 11:2 ….hold fast to the traditions I handed on to you
2 Thessalonians 2:25 ….hold fast to the traditions, whethe oral or by letter….
2 Thessalonians 3:6….shun those acting not according to tradition….
John 21:25 …there is MUCH more that is not recorded (paraphrased by me)
2 Peter 19-20 Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
Please note that “we” in verse 19 says to me that Peter is speaking with Apostolic authority and verse 20 clearly warns again private interpretation.
| This is why I say the Catholic Church has twisted scripture. You admit the passage in question has nothing to do with baptism. But yet you try to force it to make your point about infants and the need for baptism. |
We don’t force it to say anything other than we believe Jesus expressed His love and care for the children.
And that we are to imitate the love and care by caring for the souls of these wee ones and batizing them. And that we are confident to trust those who are not to Our Lord’s loving care.
|
Originally Posted by John]
The Jews did not baptize babies.
|
No they did not. The mark of the OT covenant was circumcision. I believe that baptism replaces circumcision in the NT.
| Early Christians did not. |
This is precisely why Tradition is important. Even though the Bible specifically says there is more that isn’t recorded in the Bible, you deny that historical record outside of Scripture could be helpful in a deeper clearer understanding of Scripture. Scripture says that Baptism is important….we disagree on how important. It specifically records Baptism of households (Acts 16) but doesn’t specifically record whether or not infants were baptised at the same time. Scripture doesn’t explicitly say infants were or were baptised. But if we look at the historical record we can see that St. Augustine specifically teaches that infants are to be baptised. Those close in time and teaching to the Apostles themselves illuminate those places where Sacred Scripture wasn’t specific.
|
Originally Posted by [John]
But the Church came up with a way to try and circumvent God’s way. It does not work. It is God’s way only or it is eternal separation from God in a real Hell. I believe that babies who die go to heaven based on what the Bible says in II Samuel about the death of David’s unbaptized infant son who died.
|
So your quibble with us is that we referenced the wrong Scripture?!
|
Originally Posted by [John]
I think we need to chew on these items for a while. I will reply to the rest of [another Catholic poster] reply at a later date. This will suffice for now.
|
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
Leave a Comment