Teachings of the Church v. The Bible

Amen to that

a book that help a lot on understanding the mass is THE LAMB SUPPER by scott hahn. now i go to mass an it fill me up. :slight_smile: Hail Mary
V. Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
R. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.:slight_smile:

As an ex-Protestant, this even strikes me as odd.

Here’s an interesting rejoinder: If the Protestant churches recognize no tradition outside of what is written in the Bible:

  1. What are those other books in the pew they pull out more often than the Bible during worship services (depending on the denomination, these referenced books may be The Book of Common Prayer, Hymnals, etc)?

  2. Since the Bible does not contain a liturgy, yet Protestant churches clearly have one, where did these come from?

  3. Since the Bible does not define dress code for clergy, and yet Protestant clergy tend to dress similarly within a denomination, where did this come from?

  4. Since Protestant churches have the same Bible, what makes a Baptist any different than a Methodist?

If you answered “Tradition”, congratulations—you just failed sola scriptura.

As contarini pointed out on a thread a while back Vatican II’s Dei Verbum 2.10 says that the Church’s Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God. And as he pointed out it may not according to the CC be the only thing considered the Word, it is most definetly the Word of God.
This is quoted as well in the CCC para 86.

This is true. However, the question as worded by the OP translates in Catholic understanding to “which takes precedence, the word of God or the word of God?” Thus the answer, neither, for they can never be in conflict.

Your assertion is like saying are Jesus’ words the truth or are Pauls?
You obviously have a very narrow view (if any at all) of history and a naive view of scripture. Jesus established A church Mt 16:18-19, 18:15-18. One church that is authoritative, that gave you the 27 books of the canon and it is called the Catholic church. 1 Tim 3:15 says “the church is the pillar and support of truth.” So which of the 20,000-30,000 churches would you say can give any credible evidence as it being the pillar and support of truth?

It is funny how some people argue as though they have the correct view of what scripture means, and yet deny an infallible interpretation of the Bible. In order for you to say Catholicism is wrong in its interpretation of scripture, there must you must then conclude (logically) that you hold to the correct interpretation of scripture, or you know what it is but don’t choose to hold to it.
How is it that YOU have the correct position on what scripture says?

One semantic point—I think the question is not what it says (if we have the same version of it we ought to agree on that at least) but what it MEANS.

One issue I’ve found in debating fundamentalists in particular is cherrypicking—they pull a short quote out, ignore the context, and link it to other quotes removed from context.

This is a perfect heresy engine, I would imagine.

A good example would be the Word of Faith movement (Ken Copeland et al) which really magnifies the notion of words not returning void to a point where most of us would think the Bible was now one quotation long.

I’d put it this way: The Church doesn’t teach something because it’s in the Bible; rather, it’s in the Bible because the Church teaches it. They are complementary, but the Church produced the Bible, not vice versa.

I had a Protestant friend tell me she was not sola scriptura, but prima scriptura. I thought about that for a while before I realized my position was that I’m not sola ecclesia, but prima ecclesia.

Teflon93;2377989]As an ex-Protestant, this even strikes me as odd.

Here’s an interesting rejoinder: If the Protestant churches recognize no tradition outside of what is written in the Bible:

Actually they do even though they don’t admit it. Some Protestants who argue on this forum take a position from being taught what the Bible says, perhaps by their pastor or some other authoritative figure; this means that the truth they received was traditioned (paradosis) handed down to them, verbally and in writing. Some of it is correct, some not.

  1. What are those other books in the pew they pull out more often than the Bible during worship services (depending on the denomination, these referenced books may be The Book of Common Prayer, Hymnals, etc)?

Extactly. It is a naive 21st century view to think the Bible was a codex from the begining and that the Apostles preached with it in their hands; some actually I believe think that.

  1. Since the Bible does not contain a liturgy, yet Protestant churches clearly have one, where did these come from?

Right again. Protestants engage in a liturgy, tradition, and Tradition (canon), and rituals and praise songs that go over and over which are repetitious.

  1. Since the Bible does not define dress code for clergy, and yet Protestant clergy tend to dress similarly within a denomination, where did this come from?

Right.

  1. Since Protestant churches have the same Bible, what makes a Baptist any different than a Methodist?

Baptist’s don’t dance it’s immoral but contraception to them that’s acceptable.:shrug: (I was a Baptist I experienced them)

If you answered “Tradition”, congratulations—you just failed sola scriptura.

Exactly. The canon of scripture is a Tradition authoritatively recognized by the Catholic church; first cited at the council of Rome under Pope Damasus in 382 A.D. …
home.inreach.com/bstanley/canon.htm

[Teflon93;2378747]One semantic point—I think the question is not what it says (if we have the same version of it we ought to agree on that at least) but what it MEANS.

Yes. I sometimes say “says” and sometime say “means.” I should be more specific and say how the Bible is properly interpreted.

One issue I’ve found in debating fundamentalists in particular is cherrypicking—they pull a short quote out, ignore the context, and link it to other quotes removed from context.

This is a perfect heresy engine, I would imagine.

A good example would be the Word of Faith movement (Ken Copeland et al) which really magnifies the notion of words not returning void to a point where most of us would think the Bible was now one quotation long.

Yes, you are correct for many fundamentalists. I was once one as a Baptist. I had a narrow and over simplistic view of scripture, that it was easily interpreted and I also thought that I as a fundamentalist had the truest form of the Christian faith. But a good and objective juxtaposition of Protestantism and Catholicism changed my mind.

Originally Posted by Steel Arrow
When I was a Catholic, I seem to remember a heavy dose of Church Teachings at Mass instead of Bible. So, it seems to me that more emphasis is placed on the Teachings than on the Bible itself, or, is one the same as the other?

Catholic church teachings=the teachings of the Bible. Far to many Catholics and Protestants to be fair, blame the church they grew up in because they didn’t understand the teaching until years after they left; this is called subjective inductive experientialism. Personally, I don’t blame my Baptist past but am thankful for it teaching me the Bible as they knew it to be true. Many people just didn’t listen to any teaching when they were younger. I didn’t know my Baptist faith well until I was in my twenties. Only when they were well into their adulthood did they really study what the Bible teaches, yet for many it was taught by someone who did have the completeness of truths only found in Catholic teaching.

Steel Arrow—could you elaborate on the teachings at Mass?

In my parish, the bulk of the Mass is straight out of the Bible. Aside from the readings, you can draw a straight line from every aspect of the Mass right back to the Bible (for example, we recite the Lord’s Prayer at every Mass). Since the Order of Mass is universal, I must presume it’s the same for every other parish.

About the only thing that could be considered “teaching” rather than Scripture would be the homily, which of course may vary from parish to parish and Mass to Mass but which is a) short - usually about 10 min and b) tied directly to the preceding Bible readings. My experience growing up Protestant and following through various denominations was that the sermons were both much longer, much more variable pastor to pastor and service to service, and much more tied to teaching an interpretation of Scripture than homilies are.

Again, it depends on what you mean by “teaching”, so please clarify if you would.

Teflon, it is church dogma and doctrine.

Bible is Bible. Church dogma and doctrine is something different.

For instance, the “assumprion of Mary”. Catholics claim it is scriptural. God is a spirit. Heaven is a place of spirits. On the day of resurrection and judgment, we are all to be changed. Jesus was changed. He was transfigured. Enos walked with God. Elijah was taken by God. It would appear that these bible men were changed to live and exist with God in all eternity. There is no scriptural reference of “taking” Mary into heaven like Enos and Elijah. If there were, wouldn’t the RCC be including it in the Bible? :tiphat:

I really haven’t heard much in the way of “church teachings” as such at Mass. I was just thinking about this at Mass tonight. We recited a prayer together at the beginning, followed by brief penitential rite, asking forgivenss of our sins.

Then there were readings–yes, from the bible–an old testament reading, a psalm, a reading from 2 Corinthians, then a Gospel reading, followed by a short homily.

The Eucharistic prayer that followed is entirely directed to the Father through Christ, ending with “through Him, with Him and in Him, all honor and glory is yours, Almighty Father, forever and ever. Amen.”

Then we all recited the Lord’s Prayer, just before communion.

It’s all biblical and Christ centered.

Jim-

That’s exactly what threw me as well (and thanks for clarifying, Steel Arrow).

Perhaps the reference might have been a reference to a specific Mass on a feast day?

I can say that I can’t recall any examples at Mass myself where extra-Biblical Catholic doctrine has really been put forth.

Let’s grant for the sake of argument that there are, though—at least in some parishes.

Would this be different than Presbyterians referencing predestination, which of course is doctrinal rather than scriptural? Say through some reference to the Elect?

Or the altar calls and speaking in tongues which feature pretty prominently in Pentecostal services?

This is what invariably confuses me of Protestant critiques of the notion that tradition is important—are Protestants really blind to the fact that they have traditions of their own which they embrace and jealously guard? Isn’t that why there’s so much enmity to this day between Protestant denominations?

Is all truth inscripturated? Uh…no it’s not.

Catholics claim it is scriptural. God is a spirit. Heaven is a place of spirits. On the day of resurrection and judgment, we are all to be changed. Jesus was changed. He was transfigured. Enos walked with God. Elijah was taken by God. It would appear that these bible men were changed to live and exist with God in all eternity. There is no scriptural reference of “taking” Mary into heaven like Enos and Elijah. If there were, wouldn’t the RCC be including it in the Bible? :tiphat:

Of course the Bible doesn’t give a play-by-play of Mary’s assumption or explicitly say she was assumed but the Bible doesn’t say it is the only authority either so you need to rethink your reasoning.
Furthermore the reality of Mary’s assumption is based on many truths that you unfortunately ignore:

  1. That Christ established an authortative church (1 Tim 3:15) which is THE Catholic church as the early church fathers writings attest.

2)That even if a particular truth wasn’t written down, Christians were obligated to obey their leaders (Heb 13:17) “Obey your leaders and defer to them, for they keep watch over you and will have to give an account, that they may fulfill their task with joy and not with sorrow, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Heb 12:7 also affirms Christians to obey their leaders.

  1. That Mary’s assumption is based and built upon certain truths; that she was immaculately conceived just as Mary being the theotokos is based on the truth that Jesus IS God in His entirety; that is He is not merely a man, but a person who is a man and God also; as all Marian dogmas are based on Christological truths. And that the Trinity is built upon the truth of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God.

  2. That NO Christian nor any Christian leader at ALL taught sola scriptura prior to the reformation where Martin Luther first coined the phrase and therefore Christians were obedient to the Catholic church and its authoritative leaders which history affirms by both secular and Christian sources (yes I can give them to you if waranted). And that those Catholic Christian leaders (bishops) history affirms are the very people who authoritatively recognized and decided upon the canon of scripture and moreover the disputed books which makes up the 27 New Testament books you so faciley take for granted in your Bible.

Nonetheless, if you want a scriptural citation, Mary is depicted in Rev 11 and 12:1 in polyvalent language as the book of Revelation frequently uses…

"The Contents of the Ark
[LIST]
*]We know the contents of the ark from Heb 9:4 (and various passages in the Pentateuch). The ark held:[LIST=1]
*]the tablets with the Decalogue, the ten Words of God, which were a “type” of Jesus, the incarnate Word of God (John 1:1);
*]it held the manna, the bread from heaven, another “type” of Jesus, the true bread from heaven (John 6:32);
*]and it held Aaron’s high priestly rod, the token of Aaron’s Levitical high priesthood, another “type” of Jesus, our Great High Priest (Heb 4:14).[/LIST]
[/LIST]Other Clues
[LIST]
*]Mary held Jesus in her womb, so she is the ark’s “antitype”, or fulfilment, the New Testament Ark of the Covenant. There are also some interesting parallels between 2 Samuel 6 (which talks about David’s attempt to bring the ark to Jerusalem) and Luke 1 (which talks about Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth). The ark was in Judah, and Mary went to Judah; David asked “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” and Elizabeth asked “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”; the ark stayed in the house of Obed-edom for three months, and Mary stayed in the house of Zachariah for three months; David leaped and danced before the ark, and the baby John the Baptist leaped in Elizabeth’s womb when she heard Mary’s greeting.[/LIST]In John’s revelation the ark is replaced by a woman who gives birth to the male child, who apparently is Jesus (based, among other things, on Rev 12:5, “one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron”, which corresponds closely with the messianic implications of Psalm 2:7-9). This means the woman is Mary (it is important to note though that this is a “polyvalent” passage, with the woman being symbolic of not only Mary, but also of the Church, and of Israel). Since the ark is seen in God’s temple in heaven, and since Mary’s *physical *body is the New Testament ark, Mary is physically in heaven (not just her spirit, cf Heb 12:23)."
homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_assumption.html

It was fitting …that the most holy-body of Mary, God-bearing body, receptacle of God, divinised, incorruptible, illuminated by divine grace and full glory …should be entrusted to the earth for a little while and raised up to heaven in glory, with her soul pleasing to God." *Theoteknos of Livias, Homily on the Assumption (ante A.D. 650). :slight_smile: *“May the Sacred Heart of Jesus be Adored, Glorified, Loved & Preserved throughout the world, now & forever. Sacred Heart of Jesus, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Worker of Miracles, please pray for me. Saint Jude, Helper of the Hopeless, please pray for me. Amen.”:smiley:

Actually God revealed the Word of the New Testament through the Catholic Church. The Holy Scripture of the New Testament was declared by and as a result of the Decree of Pope St. Damasus 1 at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D.

***The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:
It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun.
The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.
Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”***


***The Council of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed the canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 393: Council of Hippo. “It has been decided that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.” (canon 36 A.D. 393).***


***The Third Council of Carthage reaffirmed anew, the Canon put forth by Pope Damasus I…

AD 397: Council of Carthage III. "It has been decided that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical " (canon 47 A.D. 397).***

I hope this helps dispell your obvious misimpressions about Holy Scripture.

Yours in Christ.

:bowdown: Far be it for me to even attempt to argue/debte with so many worthy Scriptural scholars as yourselves. I, a poor, non-scholar Christian, was only attempting to glean simple knowledge from so many of the wonderful experts of Scripture I have encountered in these various forums. I apologize if I have had a viewpoint that is not in lock-step with the collective opinion of the other participants. It appears that I am at fault for attempting to decifer, through private study, the gist of the Word of God. I acknowledge that the RCC originally compiled the Bible. I acknowledge that it was written by inspired men, and the New Testament was written after the death of Jesus. I further acknowledge that the written book was only avalable to the few, an the masses were taught vebally the word of God. But now, we are able to own our own copy, search the Scriptures and find the truth we are seaking all on our own. We have the opportunity to compare various editions and translations of the Bible t actually find where there are doctrinally opposing doctrines of the many denominations. We are also free, as untrained biiblical scholars, to decide for ourselves exactly what is true when it comes to deciding whom is and whom isn’t right on their interpertation of Scripture. Often, I find it difficult on whom to believe, the scholar who writes an opinion on Scripture, a Cardinal who gve “inspired interpretation” on what he believes is the Church stand on Scripture, or a papal decree that makes a certain belief on things or events that none of us has ever had a chance to read, search, interpret, discover for ourselves. I don’t mind assistance in my search. It does bother me though, that my questions and efforts are not given the same respect as it seems to be give among yourselves. :ehh:

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.