Disregard of Scripture?


#1

Hey again. And thanks again for all of your thoughtful answers to all of my questions.

Do Catholics disregard scripture in favor of sacred tradition? This is still my stumbling block with your faith. I have absolutely no doubt that Christ is the son of the living God. That he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified, dead and buried, and rose again into heaven. Just like the apostles creed says. Now, according to scripture that means I have Salvation. “Whosoever believes in his heart, and confesses with his mouth” you know the deal. I am not a Catholic, but according to the eternal word of God, which strangely enough I can carry around in a small book in my backpack, I always loved that thought, says repeatedly that I and others like me are saved.

Why do Catholics put such strict non-biblical beliefs into their dogma? Scripture says that Jesus had brothers, not cousins, trust me I know the cousin/kinsmen argument by heart now, and nowhere does it state that the dead should be prayed too. I know in the book of Wisdom or Macabees it says that it is a good thing to pray FOR the daed, but not TO them. If you’re raised Catholic do you just take Rome as a final authority automatically and never question it? Peter, Paul, John, James etc. are never mentioned as praying to Mary, Moses, Abraham, or anyone else,
don’t you think that if this was common and accepted practice that it would be mentioned?

And then there’s the Priesthood. Forbidding marriage is completely unBiblical. No wonder all the scandal within the priesthood over the centuries. These poor men and nuns are forbidden to enter into the first established covenant of God, to sell there earthly goods or give them to the Church to increase it’s own wealth and dominion, etc. I’ve also read of Bishops condoning extra-marital sex for priest’s as long as they never married and confessed the sin to one another, but sense I have no direct source for this info, other than John MacArthur, I won’t argue this point.

So much of these beliefs about the priesthood, Marian dogmas, etc. are just incredibly hard to swallow. I have volumes of books written by Catholics on all of these topics, apologetics cd’s etc. but nothing has convinced me yet. I’m all for the truth, and the fulness there of, but I’m having serious trouble finding it here. Any advice or help would be appreciated.

May the Eternal God of Heaven and Earth bless each of you with His Grace,

May the Peace of Christ Jesus our Lord encompass you,

And may the fellowship of the Holy Spirit never leave you at a loss for anything good. Amen…and Amen.


#2

Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are two streams flowing from one source, Divine Revelation. Nothing in Sacred Tradition contradicts Scripture, but this tradition must be preserved for its value and necessity in interpreting the meaning of Scripture. Jesus clearly founded a Church, named its first leader and through him gave the Church authority over law, doctrine, teaching, morality and worship on earth.


#3

Hi, Manphibian.

Catholis DO, in my opinion, tend to relegate Scripture to a lower shelf.

But in fact almost all Catholic doctrine, on poiints where we differ from Protestant doctrine, can find support in Scripture.

As a consequence, we CATHOLICS ask, When you, Protestant, are shown that something Catholics profess IS supported by Scripture, will you “fall all over yourself” trying to save your sacred, holy Protestant doctrine from Scripture, or will you be impacted by what Scripture says? I.e., will YOU suddenly find YOURSELF doing PRECISELY what YOU say Catholics do…“disregarding Scripture”?

I wonder.


#4

What Annie said.

The Source of Truth is Jesus, the very Word of God, who, by his incarnation as man, revealed himself and truth to us. That revelation was handed down to his apostles and to the Church, out of which came the scriptures and Tradition–whch is simply the handing down of the Faith of the Apostles.

Jesus didn’t just hand us a Book and say, “Here–read this.”
(Well, the reformation tried that, and look what happened.)


#5

Jesus didn’t just hand us a Book and say, “Here–read this.”
(Well, the reformation tried that, and look what happened.)

Well put, non-Catholics will often accuse Catholics of having a disregard or disrespect for Scripture because we don’t try to prove everything Sola Scriptura. We put Scripture in its proper place-on equal plain with Tradition and the Magisterium.

It would be a truer accusation to say that the non-Catholics disregard Tradition and the Magisterium, thus denying key sources of the Word.


#6

[quote=Manphibian]Hey again. And thanks again for all of your thoughtful answers to all of my questions.

I’m not sure I was one of those who responded, but I’ll say, “You’re welcome” all the same.

Do Catholics disregard scripture in favor of sacred tradition? This is still my stumbling block with your faith. I have absolutely no doubt that Christ is the son of the living God. That he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified, dead and buried, and rose again into heaven. Just like the apostles creed says. Now, according to scripture that means I have Salvation. “Whosoever believes in his heart, and confesses with his mouth” you know the deal. I am not a Catholic, but according to the eternal word of God, which strangely enough I can carry around in a small book in my backpack, I always loved that thought, says repeatedly that I and others like me are saved.
[/quote]

First of all, Sacred Tradition is not a thing apart from Sacred Scripture. The Bible is a part of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition is the teachings of Christ passed on to us through the Apostles and their successors. Scripture witnesses to the truth of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Tradition witnesses to the truth of Sacred Scripture. It’s “both and” not “either or”, as so many ill-informed (through no fault of their own) Protestants have been led to believe.

Secondly, the verse you cited does not stand alone, nor does it explain the whole of Christian teaching about salvation and who will be saved. It is but one verse within the context of the writings of Paul, which is also within the context of the whole of Scripture, which is in the whole of Church teaching. Isolating verses in this way can lead us into all sorts of misunderstandings of the kind you give us here. You have been taught to think the way you do, so I understand where you are coming from. As a former Protestant who used to have your understanding I can say it unequivocally. If you truly want to understand Catholic teaching based on Sacred Scripture drawn from Sacred Tradition, I recommend you read this: Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture

Why do Catholics put such strict non-biblical beliefs into their dogma? Scripture says that Jesus had brothers, not cousins, trust me I know the cousin/kinsmen argument by heart now, and nowhere does it state that the dead should be prayed too. I know in the book of Wisdom or Macabees it says that it is a good thing to pray FOR the daed, but not TO them. If you’re raised Catholic do you just take Rome as a final authority automatically and never question it? Peter, Paul, John, James etc. are never mentioned as praying to Mary, Moses, Abraham, or anyone else,
don’t you think that if this was common and accepted practice that it would be mentioned?

And then there’s the Priesthood. Forbidding marriage is completely unBiblical. No wonder all the scandal within the priesthood over the centuries. These poor men and nuns are forbidden to enter into the first established covenant of God, to sell there earthly goods or give them to the Church to increase it’s own wealth and dominion, etc. I’ve also read of Bishops condoning extra-marital sex for priest’s as long as they never married and confessed the sin to one another, but sense I have no direct source for this info, other than John MacArthur, I won’t argue this point.

So much of these beliefs about the priesthood, Marian dogmas, etc. are just incredibly hard to swallow. I have volumes of books written by Catholics on all of these topics, apologetics cd’s etc. but nothing has convinced me yet. I’m all for the truth, and the fulness there of, but I’m having serious trouble finding it here. Any advice or help would be appreciated.

May the Eternal God of Heaven and Earth bless each of you with His Grace,

May the Peace of Christ Jesus our Lord encompass you,

And may the fellowship of the Holy Spirit never leave you at a loss for anything good. Amen…and Amen.

You bring up too many topics here to discuss in one thread. Please separate them and post on them one by one so we can answer them more fully and more easily. Let’s just stick to Sacred Tradition and its relationship to Sacred Scripture for this one. OK?

Thanks! And God bless you and yours! :smiley:


#7

In response to the title of the thread:
No, we do not disregard Scripture. We disregard personal interpretations of it which conflict with Church teaching.

IN addition to puzzleannies excellent post:
The New Testament is not pure divine revelation - it is the history of that revelation, Jesus Christ. And it is not self attesting: someone had to tell you that it was “the word of God” and you had to believe them. The immediate question you should ask is, “By what authority can this person claim to know that the bible is the word of God?” Such a determination will result in a trail of “extrabiblical” tradition. So we all have extrabiblical tradition in our faith - it is simply a question of how much and by what means we choose to verify the authority of those extrabiblical traditions.

Phil


#8

Della- I am not posting a topical list of objections i may have with Catholicism. I am simply posting thoughts on certain dogmas and what my hang ups with them are. I truely get a lot of help with these questions from this forum so I figured I’d post it here.
Secondly, the verse I did quote if a writing of Paul taken from the whole of scripture. As is “This IS my body” which Catholic apologists use as a literal “IS” to argue the real presence. Taken in the whole of the Gospel, however, Christ many times speaks in non-literal terms. “I am the vine”, etc.

Granted, apolgetics for any Christian denomination or group claiming to be the Church of God can be convincing using scripture alone, much the same way that a Ford dealer makes you think Fords are the best vehicles and a Chevrolet dealer can be equally convincing. Good command of the English language and a persuasive arguement and style can earn debate points, but I’m looking for TRUTH. Capital T. That speaks to my soul, heart, and mind, like the Truth of the Gospel always has.

I am a Christian. I am not protestant because I am in protest of nothing. I’m simply inquering into Catholicism to see if the claims it makes are capital “T” Truth.

Be Gods,
Matt


#9

[quote=Manphibian] I am not protestant because I am in protest of nothing. I’m simply inquering into Catholicism to see if the claims it makes are capital “T” Truth.

Be Gods,
Matt
[/quote]

From Manphibian’s own Profile in this site…

**Religion:
Protestant **


#10

[quote=Manphibian]Hey again. And thanks again for all of your thoughtful answers to all of my questions.

Do Catholics disregard scripture in favor of sacred tradition? This is still my stumbling block with your faith. .
[/quote]

If you look at how we got the bible (there is a very good book by that title by a protestant) you will find that Scripture is in fact part of Sacred Tradition.

May the Lord richly bless you.


#11

"I don’t know what you mean by `glory,’ " Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don’t–till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”

"But `glory’ doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,” Alice objected.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master–that’s all.”

If you are a Christian who subscribes to Luther’s doctrinal inventions of sola (or solo) scriptura and sola fide, and all that acceptence of those 16th century novelties imply, you are indeed a child of the Reformation and thus, by definition, a Protestant. No matter what you chose to call yourself, that’s the reality of what you choose to be. No matter how much the gay-rights activists and others, for example want to call their relationships “marriages” and their living arangements “families” they are not free to change definitions to suit their ideology. Niether are you.


#12

[quote=Manphibian]Della- I am not posting a topical list of objections i may have with Catholicism. I am simply posting thoughts on certain dogmas and what my hang ups with them are. I truely get a lot of help with these questions from this forum so I figured I’d post it here.
Secondly, the verse I did quote if a writing of Paul taken from the whole of scripture. As is “This IS my body” which Catholic apologists use as a literal “IS” to argue the real presence. Taken in the whole of the Gospel, however, Christ many times speaks in non-literal terms. “I am the vine”, etc.

Granted, apolgetics for any Christian denomination or group claiming to be the Church of God can be convincing using scripture alone, much the same way that a Ford dealer makes you think Fords are the best vehicles and a Chevrolet dealer can be equally convincing. Good command of the English language and a persuasive arguement and style can earn debate points, but I’m looking for TRUTH. Capital T. That speaks to my soul, heart, and mind, like the Truth of the Gospel always has.

I am a Christian. I am not protestant because I am in protest of nothing. I’m simply inquering into Catholicism to see if the claims it makes are capital “T” Truth.

Be Gods,
Matt
[/quote]

You are a Protestant only in the fact that you are not a Catholic. But, you are a 2nd or 3rd or 4th, etc. generation Protestant so naturally you don’t see yourself as protesting against anything. But, the very fact that you cannot accept/understand the teachings of the Church shows that you are protesting those teachings, however benignly or innocently. :wink:

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t believe you are getting the central point. Sacred Scripture CANNOT be properly interpreted outside of Sacred Tradition. It all boils down to authority–who has it and who doesn’t. Sacred Tradition tells us that Peter and the Apostles were given that authority, which they freely exercised as clearly seen in the writings following the Gospels. God didn’t take that authority away from them when they passed it on to their successors by the laying on of hands. The teaching authority of Church Christ founded, the Magisterium, has the authority to definitively interpret the Bible and no one else. The very fact that there are Christians of every denomination and sect (excluding the Catholic Church which is not a denomination but the Church of Christ) who vehemently disagree on core dogma and doctrines proves that simply picking up the Bible and reading it does not give anyone the right to interpret it. That is simple fact.


#13

[quote=Manphibian]Hey again. And thanks again for all of your thoughtful answers to all of my questions.

[/quote]

Do Catholics disregard scripture in favor of sacred tradition?
No, absolutely not

This is still my stumbling block with your faith. I have absolutely no doubt that Christ is the son of the living God. That he was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, was crucified, dead and buried, and rose again into heaven. Just like the apostles creed says. Now, according to scripture that means I have Salvation. “Whosoever believes in his heart, and confesses with his mouth” you know the deal.
Actually, Scripture says you “will be saved”, not “have salvation”.
And if you keep reading all the way to verse 13 you will find that all you need to do is “call on the name of the Lord” to be saved - none of this confessing and believing stuff. Nobody seems to like to isolate 10:13, though. Why is that? If we can isolate 10:9-10 and claim it as an absolute truth independent of the rest of Scripture, why can’t we do that with verse 13?

I am not a Catholic, but according to the eternal word of God, which strangely enough I can carry around in a small book in my backpack, I always loved that thought, says repeatedly that I and others like me are saved.

You should probably sit down before you read this - it might be upsetting! But the truth is that if you are saved in Gods estimation, then you are Catholic by definition.

Why do Catholics put such strict non-biblical beliefs into their dogma?

Because it is divine revelation manifest through His church, much like the bible. You’ll have to ask God why he was so sloppy with the NT as an instruction manual for Christianity. He displayed far greater talent with the OT rule book for detail. I wonder why? Is it because the Old Covenant Law of the book was replaced by the New Covenant "pillar of truth, the bride of Christ, the Church?

Scripture says that Jesus had brothers, not cousins, trust me I know the cousin/kinsmen argument by heart now

Do you think maybe it is possible that Mary gave the final verdict on this topic directly to John decades before the NT was even written? Why did the early Church beleive it to be so?

, and nowhere does it state that the dead should be prayed too.
I know in the book of Wisdom or Macabees it says that it is a good thing to pray FOR the daed, but not TO them.

We don’t pray to the dead. We ask the living to pray to God for us, knowing that the prayers of the righteous are very powerful.

If you’re raised Catholic do you just take Rome as a final authority automatically and never question it? Peter, Paul, John, James etc. are never mentioned as praying to Mary, Moses, Abraham, or anyone else, don’t you think that if this was common and accepted practice that it would be mentioned?

In the bible you mean? No, not necessarily - it could more easily be passed on as an oral instruction.

And then there’s the Priesthood. Forbidding marriage is completely unBiblical.

I agree, but the Church does not forbid marriage - its a sacrament!
The Church requires as a discipline that priests and nuns remain celibate - like Paul recommended. Are you of the mindset that no one should be celibate? You better reread your bible…Paul taught otherwise. Did he also violate that early covenant as well when he recommended that the unmarried “remain as I am” so that they could be “concerned about God” rather than “concerned about the world”? Either he did violate it or your understanding of the role of celibacy in Christianity is incomplete. My guess is its the latter…

So much of these beliefs about the priesthood, Marian dogmas, etc. are just incredibly hard to swallow. I have volumes of books written by Catholics on all of these topics, apologetics cd’s etc. but nothing has convinced me yet. I’m all for the truth, and the fulness there of, but I’m having serious trouble finding it here. Any advice or help would be appreciated.
Short answer? Reconsider your view that by reading the bible - especially the NT - you personally will come to a complete understanding of all that Christianity was meant to be. I thought you were saved - why are you still searching? Is something missing? Or is it simply an intellectual exercise as to why Catholics believe what they believe? Why don’t you read some of the early Church Fathers? Or read some of the many testimonies of devout ministers and lay people who have converted to the Catholic church.

I have read the entire bible and I don’t have all the answers. Thank you for your prayer, and I pray that you find that peace which surpasses all understanding…

Phil


#14

As to the part about Jesus’s brothers, the trouble is you seem to believe that they were natural sons of Mary. The bible doesn’t say that. Nor does it call them Jesus’s YOUNGER brothers. The Bible records Jesus giving Mary into the custody of the Apostle John while hanging on the cross—surely he knew that his “brothers” would be believers by the time of Pentecost??? Why then wouldn’t he entrust Mary to the care of one of her own children??? Moreover, very early church documents make mention of Jesus’s brothers, such as James the first bishop of Jerusalem, but nobody mentions him as a son of Mary. Jesus had many “brothers” and “sisters” who, as ACTS records, were Christians by the day of Pentecost, yet no early Christian writing makes mention of the (obviously) MANY children of Mary, if these were her natural children. No early 1st or early 2nd century writer knows anything of children (or grandchildren!) of Mary either. The Universal Christian view, VERY early on, was that Mary had NO other children HERSELF, and it was commonly believed that at least some of Jesus’s brothers were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage (he was believed to have been a widower when he married Mary).

Love, Jaypeeto2


#15

[quote=Manphibian]I am a Christian. I am not protestant because I am in protest of nothing. I’m simply inquering into Catholicism to see if the claims it makes are capital “T” Truth.

Be Gods,
Matt
[/quote]

Your profile does say that you are Protestant. Just a point of information. Most often we are told by people that they are Christians and not Protestants and so there is some confusion.

As for the search you are making, God be with you.

The truth is that the context of John 6 as well as the context of the other passages that tie directly to the Eucharistic discusssion (Discussed in this thread:The Eucharist IS Scriptural ) led me to see that the non-catholic inter[retation just doesn’t hold water. ALL the people who heard the Bread of Life discourse took it literally, so I disagree with those who choose to call it a metaphor or otherwise spiritualize it. Moreover, 1st Corinthians 11:23-30 indicates that St. Paul believed and taught the literal real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as did St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans.
[COLOR=Navy]"CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils."

"CHAP. VIII.–LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” In it’s entirety

This is a good example of the living Tradition of the church giving us supporting evidence of the proper interpretation of the Word of God, since Ignatius was a close friend and disciple of the St. John as well as a bishop amd martyr. There is no disregard of scripture at all, but a more sure understanding of it, because of the Tradition that has come down to us.
Pax tecum,


#16

Anyone have a link to a first century writing of Mary’s perpetual virginity, assumption, etc.? I’d like to read it.


#17

[quote=Manphibian]Anyone have a link to a first century writing of Mary’s perpetual virginity, assumption, etc.? I’d like to read it.
[/quote]

I have problem with the word “perpetaul”. You are a virgin or not…and I believe she is.


#18

The Catholic Church is a stool supported by three legs - Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Take away one of these and it falls.


#19

[quote=Manphibian]Anyone have a link to a first century writing of Mary’s perpetual virginity, assumption, etc.? I’d like to read it.
[/quote]

:smiley: Sure, right after you provide a first century writing of sola scriptura, sola fide, OSAS, an invisible church, etc, etc. I’ll keep the light on for you…

:whistle:


#20

[quote=Manphibian]Anyone have a link to a first century writing of Mary’s perpetual virginity, assumption, etc.? I’d like to read it.
[/quote]

Here they are:

BLESSED VIRGIN MARY
Mary
Lk 1:28, 30 - angel: "full of grace, found favor with God
Lk 1:42 - Elizabeth: "most blessed among women"
Lk 1:48 - Mary: “all generations will call me blessed”

Mother of God
Lk 1:43 - Elizabeth calls her “mother of my Lord” = God
Mt 1:23 - virgin bear a son, Emmanuel = "God is with us"
Lk 1:35 - child born will be called holy, the Son of God
Gal 4:4 - God sent his Son, born of a woman

The Assumption
Gn 5:24 (Hb 11:5) - Enoch taken to heaven without dying
2Kg 2:11 - Elijah assumed into heaven in fiery chariot
Mt 27:52 - many saints who had fallen asleep were raised
1Thess 4:17 - caught up to meet the Lord in the air
1Cor 15:52 - we shall be instantly changed at the last trumpet
Rom 6:23 - for the wages of sin is death
Rev 11:19-21 - ark in heaven = woman clothed in sun

The Immaculate Conception
Lk 1:28 - hail full of grace[highly favored] Lord is with you
Lk 1:30 - you have found favor with God
Lk 1:37 - for with God nothing shall be impossible
Gn 3:15 - complete enmity between woman & Satan, sin
Ex 25:11-21 - ark made of purest gold for God’s word
*Rom 3:23 - all have sinned & are deprived of God’s glory
*Lk 1:47 - my spirit rejoices in God my Savior

Perpetual Virginity
Lk 1:34 - how can this be, since I do not know man
Lk 2:41-51 - age 12, Jesus evidently only son of Mary
Mk 6:3 - “the son of Mary” not “a son of Mary”
*Mt 13:55-56 - brothers James, Joseph, Simon & Jude
Mt 27:56 - Mary the mother of James & Joseph also
Jn 19:25 - Mary the wife of Clopas
Jn 19:26 - entrusted Mary to John, not a younger sibling
Jn 7:3-4 - brothers advise like elders: "go to Judea, manifest self"
unthinkable for younger siblings (see next verse)
Mk 3:21 - set out to seize him, “he is out of his mind”
*Mt 1:25 - Joseph knew her not until she bore first-born
Mt 28:20 - I am with you always, until the end of the age
1Tim 4:13 - until I arrive, attend to reading, teaching…
1Cor 15:25 - he must reign until has enemies underfoot
Lk 1:80 - John in desert until day of his manifestation
Ex 13:2; Nb 3:12 - consecrate first -born that opens womb
Ex 34:20 - first-born among your sons you shall redeem


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.