Hi I’m A Skeptic

Home Forums All Things Catholic Hi I’m A Skeptic

This topic contains 17 replies, has 4 voices, and was last updated by  LARobert 4 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #2036

    I have carefully read through the reasons of purgatory once and find that some of the cross references taken from the Bible is out of context and misleading. The book of Macabees was interesting because I’ve never heard of it but am aware that it fits in with the apocrophal books in the Bible. There’s so many contradictions with the apopcrophal especially if you look at the book of Judas, which claimed that Judas was Jesus’ right man and that they conspired together in how Judas would turn in Jesus to a Roman soldier. That sounds really fishy.

    If you account for all the consistencies that we know today, it goes from Genesis to Revelation which is worshiped by many Christians as the Word of God. Following through this scheme, Jesus’ blood that was shed at the cross overrides the possibility of purgatory in the afterlife. A Psalms verse quotes that God’s ways are higher than ours. So would you force-feed others to live a perfect life to be pleasing to you first and then let them feel their way to salvation through developing faith later? I think that’s rather selfish to impose upon our children. The Bible states that God is fair, just, and a loving Father. God’s fairness is rooted in God allowing us to have faith first and then demonstrate our love and joy in faith through obedience being our by-product of faith. It’s safe to say that’s not being forced into a religion and looking down upon others for being a better religious person. Faith in Jesus will lead a person to righteousness. It’s so hard to lay off of justifying what’s right for some Catholics and Christian(-ese) dealing with people sinning against others or God through idolatry, greed, corruption, or sexual misconduct.

    #9999

    LARobert
    Participant

    Welcome “Bible Student” Your posting, while I am sure sincere speaks volumes of the sources that you have been taught by. To lump Macabees with Judas is quite a stretch. Since the entire Chrisitan World up to the point of Luther accepted Maccabees, and it has only been after Luther broke with The Church that anyone called it into question. Judas, along with the Gospel of Thomas, and several dozen other books were rejected by the Early Church and never had a place in the Canon. So I would ask you to do a bit of fact checking.

    Catholics believe 100% that our redemtion comes from the Incarnation, Passion, Death and Rising from the Dead of Jesus. The difference is how Protestants diverge from the teachings of Scripture and the Apostles on how that Redemtion, and Justification of the sinner is applied. Most Protestants (Especially the OSAS crowd) would lead you to believe a non-scriptural misrepresentation of salvation as something I do by accepting Jesus as My Savior, from that point forward, I have no responsibility, because I give all past present and future sinful actions to Jesus. This form of magical thinking is contrary to what Jesus and the Apostles taught, and to what the Scriptures tell us.

    Since it seems you have more than one bone to pick with the Catholic Faith, please elaborate and ask point blank the questions you have about the Catholic Church. I’m sure you will find the answers from Catholic sources are quite a bit different than the misrepresentations of the Church you’ve apparently been taught.

    #10000

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    It is because Jesus shed his blood on the cross that we have purgatory to wipe away the stains of sins for those who are already heaven-bound.

    Purgatory is not a place of 2nd chances, but a stage of purification before a soul enters heaven.

    #10001

    LARobert
    Participant

    You may also want to read the Catholic Position here…..

    [url:11buq3la]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory_qa.html[/url:11buq3la]

    [url:11buq3la]http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp[/url:11buq3la]

    [url:11buq3la]http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3302[/url:11buq3la]

    I know it can be awfully frightening for some who post what they think will the one great proof that the Catholic Church teaches error to look at what the Church actually teaches rather than what they are told we believe, you should give it a chance, and learn from the source.

    #10003

    James
    Member

    Here are Luther’s Prefaces to the Apocrypha that have been included in my Lutheran Study Bible (pages 12-13):
    http://s7d1.scene7.com/s7ondemand/broch … height=800
    You may look at the whole entire section if you would like. It gives great insights to what happened in time between the Old and New Testaments.
    In the link, these quotes appear on page(s) 0-1:

    [i:1bclnl58]There was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them….And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise.
    ~1 Macc 9:27; 14:41[/i:1bclnl58]

    [i:1bclnl58]When I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below.[/i:1bclnl58][He excludes the Apocrypha.]
    [i:1bclnl58]~Melito, Letter to Onesimus[/i:1bclnl58]

    [i:1bclnl58]For greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books[/i:1bclnl58][The Apocrypha][i:1bclnl58]besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.
    ~Athanasius, Festal Easter Letter (AD 367)[/i:1bclnl58]

    [i:1bclnl58]As, then the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes[/i:1bclnl58][Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus][i:1bclnl58]for the edification of the people,[/i:1bclnl58][but][i:1bclnl58]not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.
    ~Jerome, Prefaces[/i:1bclnl58]

    [i:1bclnl58]Books[/i:1bclnl58][of the Apocrypha are][i:1bclnl58]not held equal to Scriptures but are useful and good to read.
    ~Martin Luther, Prefaces to the Apocrypha[/i:1bclnl58]

    [quote:1bclnl58]Purgatory is not a place of 2nd chances, but a stage of purification before a soul enters heaven[/quote:1bclnl58]
    So is it more like “Oh no. I sinned so much that I failed to please God by being pure, so I need to purify myself” stage? Pardon my crass example, but it needed to be addressed.

    As my Pastor has told me time and time again, “The Law is written on every man’s heart.” The kind of system of purging is not new to World Religions. The Caste System of India is based on the concept of Hindu teachings of Reincarnation. You work hard in the Caste you’re in so that when you die, you may pass to the next Caste. Once you have reached the highest Caste and when you die, you start the whole concept over and over again. (It also helps to know that Eastern countries tend to think of things in circles and not of lines like Westerners do.)

    Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism and although some doctrines have changed, Buddhism still kept the concept of Reincarnation.

    Islam has, in a way, a purification stage also. Since the Muslims don’t have a savior to forgive them of their sins, the only way to clear them of this sin is Jihad. The extremist Muslims use the concept of Jihad as a way to kill the “ones who don’t thank Allah for what they done for me,” or Infidels, and also to clear them of their sins. This is the only kind of Jihad known to most non-Muslim Westerners. Being of a Christian background, I know not of another way non-extremist Muslims purge for their sins.

    "Bible_student":1bclnl58 wrote:
    I have carefully read through the reasons of purgatory once and find that some of the cross references taken from the Bible is out of context and misleading.[/quote:1bclnl58]
    I agree with Bible_student here. The point being because You [the Catholic Church] emphasis so much on Law and not Gospel and of books of non-canonical importance, it becomes inevitable that you create such “doctrine” like Purgatory and misinterpreting Scripture to create the Papacy.
    #10004

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster
    "James":3jxm79sf wrote:
    So is it more like “Oh no. I sinned so much that I failed to please God by being pure, so I need to purify myself” stage? Pardon my crass example, but it needed to be addressed.[/quote:3jxm79sf]
    No, you missed the point. “We” do not purify “ourselves” but it is through Christ that we are purified. The stains of sin are purged before full union with God. God does the purging.

    "James":3jxm79sf wrote:
    I agree with Bible_student here. The point being because You [the Catholic Church] emphasis so much on Law and not Gospel and of books of non-canonical importance, it becomes inevitable that you create such “doctrine” like Purgatory and misinterpreting Scripture to create the Papacy.[/quote:3jxm79sf]
    Here you falsely conclude that because a Scripture reference is used to support Purgatory that all doctrine is derived from Scripture. In the Protestant world it might be the case that doctrine is derived from Scripture, but not in the Catholic world since much of the belief was handed on before the scriptures were written. Scripture itself is something that was handed on.

    You make it sound like someone cracked open a bible, found a few random passages, and came up with a doctrine (which, ironically, is precisely the tendency in Protestant/Evangelical churches). Rather the passage in Maccabees is used to support the idea that purgatorial concepts existed in Jewish culture and were handed on into Christianity.

    Let us also be clear that “The Apocrypha” includes several books not in the original canon of 73 (the one Luther had foresaken and Catholics still use today) in which the Catholic Church holds that those books outside the canon but in the Apocrypha are insightful but nothing more than that. Apocrypha is a broad term.

    Did you know that not only did Luther remove the deuterocanonical books (the ones you call Apocrypha), but he also wanted to remove books in the NT such as James because he couldn’t reconcile the faith and works passages with his theology? I don’t know why people get all excited about Luther, a single man who thought he knew better than centuries of scholars and wisdom. I certainly wouldn’t trust someone that suddenly knew better than everyone else and wanted to eliminate various parts of the established tradition simply because it didn’t fit his view of the world.

    Also, your reference to the idea of purification not being new to religion brings nothing to the argument. The concept of a virgin-born god also is not new and predates Christianity by a longshot. So, what’s your point? Heretics, such as Luther, also weren’t new to Christianity, but he happened to exist at just the right time and place culturally for a big movement to take place.

    #10006

    James
    Member
    "Jon":3de29hu9 wrote:
    but not in the Catholic world since much of the belief was handed on before the scriptures were written. Scripture itself is something that was handed on.[/quote:3de29hu9]
    Have you forgotten about the Old Testament? That has been around much, much longer than when most of your traditions have. Through Jewish Scripture, God has reviled to us many times of the coming of Jesus, the pascal lamb to be slain on the cross.

    "Jon":3de29hu9 wrote:
    No, you missed the point. “We” do not purify “ourselves” but it is through Christ that we are purified. The stains of sin are purged before full union with God. God does the purging.[/quote:3de29hu9]
    If you truly believe that Jesus Christ died for you and for the sins of the world because of his undeserved Grace upon us miserable, sinful beings, why is there even a Purgatory? If asked for forgiveness, The Good Lord will show forgiveness and He’s the only one who truly knows the Sheep from the Ram; the Saved and the Damned; the Repentant on the outside and inside and those who only act like they do.

    "Jon":3de29hu9 wrote:
    Let us also be clear that “The Apocrypha” includes several books not in the original canon of 73 (the one Luther had foresaken and Catholics still use today) in which the Catholic Church holds that those books outside the canon but in the Apocrypha are insightful but nothing more than that. Apocrypha is a broad term.

    Did you know that not only did Luther remove the deuterocanonical books (the ones you call Apocrypha), but he also wanted to remove books in the NT such as James because he couldn’t reconcile the faith and works passages with his theology? I don’t know why people get all excited about Luther, a single man who thought he knew better than centuries of scholars and wisdom. I certainly wouldn’t trust someone that suddenly knew better than everyone else and wanted to eliminate various parts of the established tradition simply because it didn’t fit his view of the world.[/quote:3de29hu9]
    Now now, Jon. It would be wise for you to list your sources and please humor me in doing so, otherwise people like Papa.Cod and Ron K will only accuse you of using personal opinions and thoughts handed down to you from other Catholics with the same opinion. The total point of the whole Reformation was a Religious one. Not one of Politics. Not one of Secular agendas. It was truly a change for the better. Luther admits time and time again that he is human and deserves Death, Hell, and Punishment just like everyone else, but because of our Lord Jesus Christ bearing the world’s sin on that cross, because he loved the whole world to send his only son to save us from the Devil and his wicked ways, we are saved. Luther has taught about that countless and numerous times.

    "Jon":3de29hu9 wrote:
    Heretics, such as Luther, also weren’t new to Christianity, but he happened to exist at just the right time and place culturally for a big movement to take place.[/quote:3de29hu9]
    Are you accusing me of a heretic? If you are, you’ve no need to beat around the bush. You can be brutally honest with me (some of my friends are.) Do you truly believe that it so happened to be the right time in History, or do you believe the Holy Spirit had anything to do with the rediscovery of Biblical Salvation?
    #10008

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    Wow, James. Please remember that it was the Church that produced the Scriptures and not the other way around. The process of salvation occurred before it was recorded and compiled into the Scriptures. “Biblical salvation” is a bit of an oxymoron because you assume that all things start and end with the bible, but again the bible came well after Christian communities had been established.

    You want sources? Google is your friend, but I will list a few for you:

    http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/artic … icole.html (scroll down to section II Orthodoxy and III Christocentricity. The remarks on this page about the Catholic Church are incorrect in that the OT canon that was originally chosen in 395 was an acceptable Hebrew canon. There was disagreement even amongst Jews as to which books belonged in their own canon and which ones didn’t. Sounds familiar…)

    http://users.rcn.com/lanat/biblehistory.htm

    http://www.biblestudy.org/question/why- … bible.html

    "James":mapgdqee wrote:
    us miserable, sinful beings[/quote:mapgdqee]
    You know that’s a Luther thing, right? Luther had some serious hang ups, namely scruples, which seriously affected his theology. Let us not forget that in Genesis God looked at everything he had made and saw it was good. As God’s creation we are not wretched, but good. In our own doing we have run away from God, but God offers us a way to return, through his son, Jesus.

    And no, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit inspired a fractured Church. Jesus prayed for our unity in the garden, why on earth would the Spirit inspire division?

    P.S. The doctrine of the trinity isn’t explicit in the Scriptures. Do you still accept that teaching?

    #10010

    James
    Member
    "Jon":28ad102b wrote:
    You want sources? Google is your friend,[/quote:28ad102b]
    In detail, explain this a little further. I’m still feel like this is more of an insult than anything else

    "Jon":28ad102b wrote:
    "James":28ad102b wrote:
    us miserable, sinful beings[/quote:28ad102b]
    You know that’s a Luther thing, right?[/quote:28ad102b]
    Of course I know that, because it’s true. We are nothing but beings that, at birth, were already dead in sin. Read my next response for a better picture…

    "Jon":28ad102b wrote:
    Luther had some serious hang ups, namely scruples, which seriously affected his theology. Let us not forget that in Genesis God looked at everything he had made and saw it was good. As God’s creation we are not wretched, but good. In our own doing we have run away from God, but God offers us a way to return, through his son, Jesus.[/quote:28ad102b]
    There are three things that causes us to Sin: The Devil, our sinful behavior and the World as a whole. Of course God created all for good, but God can’t have what he wants, now can He?

    "Jon":28ad102b wrote:
    And no, I do not believe that the Holy Spirit inspired a fractured Church. Jesus prayed for our unity in the garden, why on earth would the Spirit inspire division?[/quote:28ad102b]
    Inspire division? More like trying to correct the nasty habits the Papists and the Catholic Church got itself into hundreds of years earlier.

    "Jon":28ad102b wrote:
    P.S. The doctrine of the trinity isn’t explicit in the Scriptures. Do you still accept that teaching?[/quote:28ad102b]
    Of course I do. For one to even call himself a Christian (be it a Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, etc.) it is necessary to believe this along with the virgin birth and in Christ’s resurrection.
    #10015

    LARobert
    Participant

    Personalities of the Reformers aside, there is something to this discussion that it seems many overlook when shoring up the battlements.

    Both Protestants and Catholics agree that Sin, both original and actual have an effect on our soul. How we look at those effects does however seem to me to be very different.

    From what I understand of Protestant beliefs generally, (Lutheran, Calvanist, Baptist, and the various “Evangelical” sects) Original sin, which is not our fault, but does effect us makes us Reprobate, so utterly unacceptable to God that He must reject us, and we are only worthy of Hell fire. When one is “Saved” he remains a pitiful sinner, unworthy of heaven, but Jesus’ life and passion blinds God’s ability to see how defective we are, and Jesus merits cover up or mask any and all sins past, present and future that we may commit, giving us a place in heaven, however unworthy we are.

    Catholic Theology discusses Original Sin as the “Felix Culpa” or Happy Fault, for we sould not have come to know our Savior if sin had not entered into the world. That is to say, while the Stain of Original Sin and actual sin weaken our relationship with God, it does not cut us off from the ability to accept God’s graces totally, or make us completely reprobate. [i:1t2pgkli]God sees in us the spark of goodness that He created in each soul[/i:1t2pgkli], and allows us to not simply accept Jesus’ passion as a means of restoring our relationship with Him, but when we are engaged in a relationship with Him, He elevates our own actions by His grace so that they help us to grow in spirit, and progress in our relationship with Him. [i:1t2pgkli]While we cannot on our own become worthy of heaven[/i:1t2pgkli], as God’s free gift of Grace is always needed, we can through our efforts, united with Christ’s come closer to being worthy of heaven.

    It seems “easier” to me to take the Protestant position, because in doing so one has very little responsibility. One is totally lost, and even after accepting Jesus, it is He who takes all responsibility for our Salvation. I’d like to be able to belive that and go along for the ride.

    However I do believe as the Catholic Church teaches, that accepting Christ into my life rather than taking away responsibility, adds to my responsibility to grow in spirit, and cooperation with God’s will. Christ offers the lifeline to me, but I don’t just hold on, waiting for Him to pull me, unworthy that I am into heaven. Rather He throws me the lifeline, and gives me the encouragement to climb up to him, out of the stormy sea.

    Comments?

    #10016

    James
    Member
    "LARobert":3q5q09pk wrote:
    From what I understand of Protestant beliefs generally, (Lutheran, Calvanist, Baptist, and the various “Evangelical” sects) Original sin, which is not our fault, but does effect us makes us Reprobate, so utterly unacceptable to God that He must reject us, and we are only worthy of Hell fire. When one is “Saved” he remains a pitiful sinner, unworthy of heaven, but Jesus’ life and passion blinds God’s ability to see how defective we are, and Jesus merits cover up or mask any and all sins past, present and future that we may commit, giving us a place in heaven, however unworthy we are.

    It seems “easier” to me to take the Protestant position, because in doing so one has very little responsibility. One is totally lost, and even after accepting Jesus, it is He who takes all responsibility for our Salvation. I’d like to be able to belive that and go along for the ride.

    Comments?[/quote:3q5q09pk]
    Here is a paragraph taken from the Book of Concord:
    [quote:3q5q09pk][i:3q5q09pk]Our churches teach that since the fall of Adam [Romans 5:12], all who are naturally born are born with sin [Psalm 51:5], that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with the inclination to sin, called concupiscence. Concupiscence is a disease and original vice that is truly sin. It damns and brings eternal death on those who are not born anew through Baptism and the Holy Spirit. [John 3:5]. Our churches condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original sin, thus obscuring the glory of Christ’s merit and benefits. Pelagians argue that a person can be justified before God by his own strength and reason.
    [u:3q5q09pk]AC II 1-3[/u:3q5q09pk][/i:3q5q09pk][/quote:3q5q09pk]
    When you have said

    "LARobert":3q5q09pk wrote:
    It seems “easier” to me to take the Protestant position, because in doing so one has very little responsibility. One is totally lost, and even after accepting Jesus, it is He who takes all responsibility for our Salvation. I’d like to be able to belive that and go along for the ride[/quote:3q5q09pk]
    You made the accusation by saying that Salvation’s like a “Get Out of Jail Free Card.” It Here is another article from the Book of Concord:
    [quote:3q5q09pk][i:3q5q09pk]Our churches teach that people cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works. People are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake. By His death, Christ made satisfaction for our sins. God counts this faith for righteousness in His sight (Romans 3 and 4 [3:21-26; 4:5])
    [u:3q5q09pk]AC IV 1-3[/u:3q5q09pk][/i:3q5q09pk][/quote:3q5q09pk]
    Here’s another good article; again from the Book of Concord:
    [quote:3q5q09pk][i:3q5q09pk]I do not know how to change in the least what I have previously and constantly taught about justification. Namely, that through faith, as St. Peter says, we have a new and clean heart [Acts 15:9-11], and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ, our Mediator [1 Timothy 2:5]. Although sin in the flesh has not yet been completely removed or become dead [Romans 7:18], yet He will not punish or remember it. Such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins are followed by good works [Ephesians 2:8-9]. What is still sinful or imperfect in them will not be counted as sin or defect, for Christ’s sake [Psalm 32:1-2; Romans 4:7-8]. The entire individual, both his person and his works, is declared to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us and spread over us in Christ. Therefore, we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy. As it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 1:31);namely, that he has a gracious God. For with that, all is well. We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, the faith is false and not true.
    [u:3q5q09pk]SA III XIII 1-4[/u:3q5q09pk][/i:3q5q09pk][/quote:3q5q09pk]
    #10018

    LARobert
    Participant

    James:

    Thanks for your quotes from the Book of Concord, I was aware that most Lutheran Theology on Justification and Salvation was different from the Presbyterian/Baptist view, but not to the extent that Lutheran ideas were so close in many matters to the Catholic Position.

    My question would be, since Lutheranism claims to be Sola Scriptura, how binding is the Book of Concord on Lutherans? Is there a difference in private interpretation of the Scriptures does that trump Concord? As there are various groups or Synods of Lutherans, if one says (as has happened) that women, and practicing homosexuals can be ordianed, and another says they cannot, where does the is authority on dogma or morals is it in the Word, or the Individual? Since at one point Dr. Luther encouraged Private Interpretation, and later in life when he saw the chaos it caused, recanted his statement, is there any final authority beyond what the individual feels, or believes?

    Sorry that you felt I was making an accusation. I was posting what my understanding of the subject was from Various Protestants I know, both lay and clergy. I asked for comments on my posting, because I knew you would be a good resource if my posting was not correct.

    Now before Lutharanism started, Palagianism was already condemned by the Catholic Church, so we do agree on this point.

    Catholics have always believed that we cannot be saved by our own personal merits, but by the Merits of Christ. However as Scritpture plainly teaches, “Faith without works is dead.” We agree that Faith is a gift from God, so it only follows that the works that are attached to Faith, are not merits that we do on our own, but those we accomplish when we are living a life of Grace, and united to God. A baptized person in a state of grace can give $10.00 to a charity, and if they do so to feel better about themselves or to be seen giving charity, they are not doing so their reward is the recognition. However if one does so simply to follow Christ and out of Love for God, then one’s works are not your own, but an offering to God, by following His Commands, and submitting to His will. God and His Grace elevate our works and make them meritorious.

    #10020

    James
    Member
    "LARobert":318j99wo wrote:
    My question would be, since Lutheranism claims to be Sola Scriptura, how binding is the Book of Concord on Lutherans?[/quote:318j99wo]
    In how the Catholic Church views their Catechisms as interpretations of Sacred Scripture, so Lutherans do with the Book of Concord.The Book of Concord contain two Catechisms Lutherans know: The Small Catechism (which is taught to children, converts, and even Adults to refresh their memories. In all, it is for the Laymen) and The Large Catechism (which is mostly used by Pastors.) God’s word is first and foremost important. The Book of Concord is a much more condensed and a more simple way of explaining Scripture and Lutheran Theology.

    "LARobert":318j99wo wrote:
    Is there a difference in private interpretation of the Scriptures does that trump Concord? As there are various groups or Synods of Lutherans, if one says (as has happened) that women, and practicing homosexuals can be ordianed, and another says they cannot, where does the is authority on dogma or morals is it in the Word, or the Individual? Since at one point Dr. Luther encouraged Private Interpretation, and later in life when he saw the chaos it caused, recanted his statement, is there any final authority beyond what the individual feels, or believes?[/quote:318j99wo]
    Those Lutheran synods that allow women and homosexuals to be ordained into clergy are in grave danger insomuch as they seem to forget both Sacred Scripture and The Book of Concord. Again, Scripture is the most important while the Book of Concord helps put Scripture into perspective. They are more on the liberal side of the religious spectrum while my synod (LC-MS) and the Wisconsin synod are more apologetic to Scripture and the BOC.

    As for Scripture, Lutherans are confident in the translation of their Bible because of Four Things: 1) The History of the books in the Bible 2) The Grammar used in the Bible 3) Christology and 4) Soteriology. Catholics, however, differ from this according to the [u:318j99wo]Compendium: Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u:318j99wo]:
    [quote:318j99wo][b:318j99wo]How is Sacred Scripture to be read?[/b:318j99wo] Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted with the help of the Holy Spirit and under the guidance of the Magisterium of the Church according to three criteria: (1) it must be read with attention to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture; (2) it must be read within the living Tradition of the Church; (3) it must be read with attention to the analogy of faith, that is, the inner harmony which exists among the truths of the faith themselves.[/quote:318j99wo]
    Your interpretation of Scripture comes from the help of the Pope, which is in-itself misinterpretation of Scripture. You don’t rely on the authenticity of how Scripture is historically accurate, neither do you look closely at the grammar originally used to create the Old and New Testaments. If anything, you rely on the Papacy and the Vulgate Bible for your interpretation.

    #10021

    LARobert
    Participant
    "James":2899gsg3 wrote:
    Your interpretation of Scripture comes from the help of the Pope, which is in-itself misinterpretation of Scripture. You don’t rely on the authenticity of how Scripture is historically accurate, neither do you look closely at the grammar originally used to create the Old and New Testaments. If anything, you rely on the Papacy and the Vulgate Bible for your interpretation.[/quote:2899gsg3]
    Here I think there is a misrepresentation of what the role of the Papacy is in the Church. While the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and the Supreme Head of the Church on Earth, he does not spend his day making infallible pronouncements on Scripture or any other issues. He does guide, teach and govern the Church, by virtue of the Authority given to Peter and his successors by Christ.

    As far as his other obligations they are to be guardian of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith, which includes the Sacred Scriptures. As far as defining the Sacred Scriptures, the quote you provided from the CCC is a good start. But as has been brought up before, the CCC or any approved Catechism is not the full extent of Catholic Teaching. While all Catechisms are composed of both Doctrine, and Disciplines of the Church. An example of each would be (Doctrine) There is one God, in Three Persons. As to the latter, the custom of using Holy Water to bless oneself may be included in one Catechism, but omitted by another author in his or her catechism. Since the Catechism is not the final autority on all aspects of a subject, but a shortened guide to the Faith, one cannot stop where the Catechism stops, but will hopefully grow in Faith beyond the limits of the Catechism.

    The quote you provided mentions the Magesterium, which is not just the Pope, but the Teaching Authority of the Church, which includes bishops, priests, anyone appointed to teach on behalf of the Local Bishop, who is by proxy teaching in union with the Pope. The Pope also must submit, to the Sacred Scriptures, and Sacred Tradition, and does not have the authority, as some think to change either, but the obligation to guard what has been passed on to him. This includes, when questions arise as to proper interpretation further explanation of the proper application of these sources. We look to the writings of the Fathers, as well as other sources for interpreting the Scriptures. Teaching and Interpreting the Sacred Scriptures within the Catholic Church does very much include the understanding of the the Linguistic and Cultural Norms at the time the individual books were written. Even before Dr. Luther and the beginnings of Protestantims, Catholic Biblical Scholars studied the ancient text in the context of the language and customs of the time. St. Jerome in an effort to translate the Vulgate even learned Hebrew from the Rabbis in Isreal, and delved into the Meanings of both the different versions of the Hebrew Scriptures and the LXX in determining the best sources and most authentic translation. While the Vulgate is looked to as the Primary and Official text of the Scriptures, there are any number of versions that are used in Scripture study. Prior to Dr. Luther there were a number of translations in both High and Low German, that the Catholic Church approved for reading by German Speaking countries, as well as dozens of French, Italian, a Bohemian, Slavonik, and Spanish versions that had the approbation of the Church. The main issue that prevented them from becoming widespread was the general illiteracy of the people, (one of the reasons for the artwork in the major churches and cathedrals in Europe also known as “The People’s Bible”) and Guettenberg’s invention of movable type had yet to be invented.

    I know I’m wandering all over the map, however I do want to stress that the CCC, while a good synopsis of the Faith, is simply a starting point, and not the entire faith. And the role of the Pope in the day to day workings of the Church is often overemphasised in some Protestant circles, who try to support an error that Catholics do not have the right or ability to think for themselves, but must submit each and every thought to the Pope for approval.

    #10022

    James
    Member
    "LARobert":2zvv4xlh wrote:
    While the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, and the Supreme Head of the Church on Earth, he does not spend his day making infallible pronouncements on Scripture or any other issues. He does guide, teach and govern the Church, by virtue of the Authority given to Peter and his successors by Christ.[/quote:2zvv4xlh]
    The position of a single, sinful man to lead millions of people is still based on misquoted Scripture. Because of Matthew 16:18-19, which reads [i:2zvv4xlh]And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/i:2zvv4xlh]
    Catholics claim that the name “Peter” comes from the Latin word meaning “Rock.” It seems legitimate until one looks ahead a little bit [i:2zvv4xlh]Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” ~Matthew 16:16-17[/i:2zvv4xlh] All in all, the Church was founded on the rock-like faith Peter had. It was built on “the ministry of the confession Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” (Tr 25) The Church was built his word, not the dude…

    "LARobert":2zvv4xlh wrote:
    While the Vulgate is looked to as the Primary and Official text of the Scriptures, there are any number of versions that are used in Scripture study. Prior to Dr. Luther there were a number of translations in both High and Low German, that the Catholic Church approved for reading by German Speaking countries, as well as dozens of French, Italian, a Bohemian, Slavonik, and Spanish versions that had the approbation of the Church. The main issue that prevented them from becoming widespread was the general illiteracy of the people[/quote:2zvv4xlh]
    High and Low German are two different Germanic languages. Dr. Luther himself took the necessary struggle to unite all the different German dialects into a unified German language, an accomplishment made by Luther that you failed to point out or care to give credit. It may be true that there were bibles of different languages that were around, but only the educated could read. Luther was a pioneer in giving the public formal education in reading and other subjects and by translating the Bible into the vernacular of the German-speaking countries.
    #10023

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster
    "James":3iz3m4kr wrote:
    The position of a single, sinful man to lead millions of people is still based on misquoted Scripture. Because of Matthew 16:18-19, which reads [i:3iz3m4kr]And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.[/i:3iz3m4kr]
    Catholics claim that the name “Peter” comes from the Latin word meaning “Rock.” It seems legitimate until one looks ahead a little bit [i:3iz3m4kr]Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” ~Matthew 16:16-17[/i:3iz3m4kr] All in all, the Church was founded on the rock-like faith Peter had. It was built on “the ministry of the confession Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” (Tr 25)[/quote:3iz3m4kr]
    Again, it’s not based [b:3iz3m4kr][i:3iz3m4kr]on[/i:3iz3m4kr][/b:3iz3m4kr] Scripture, but on events that [b:3iz3m4kr][i:3iz3m4kr]preceded[/i:3iz3m4kr][/b:3iz3m4kr] Scripture.

    It does not come from Latin either, but rather Greek (in the New Testament) by way of Aramaic which was spoken by Jesus (and in which the word remains untranslated in another part of the gospels).

    I wrote about the issue previously here: http://www.aboutcatholics.com/worship/origin_papacy/

    There are also numerous other passages that demonstrate the primacy of Peter amongst the apostles (a practice that was well established by the time the gospels were written).

    #10024

    James
    Member

    Thank you for the link, Jon for the link. I’ll look further into it

    #10025

    LARobert
    Participant

    [quote:3384pgt2]High and Low German are two different Germanic languages. Dr. Luther himself took the necessary struggle to unite all the different German dialects into a unified German language, an accomplishment made by Luther that you failed to point out or care to give credit. It may be true that there were bibles of different languages that were around, but only the educated could read. Luther was a pioneer in giving the public formal education in reading and other subjects and by translating the Bible into the vernacular of the German-speaking countries.[/quote:3384pgt2]
    I did not point out Dr. Luther’s part in the unification of Modern German, because the point was not what happened after Luther, but what existed prior to Luther. It is just as germain that literacy was preserved prior to Guttenberg by Monastic Communities who copied the Bible, Liturgical and Theological books and even secular books. Hand copying was lengthly, laborious and costly, limiting the availibility and ease of obtaining books, or spreading literacy. Much of Dr. Luther, and other’s success in the increase of literacy was more the invention of movable type, which made printed matter more easily availible, and cutting the cost radically.

    Like Jon, I would second that Petros while it is also used for Rock in Latin is from the Greek. It is also to be noted that Jesus did not call Simon Bar Jonah, “Lithos” or little rock, but Petros for a large rock, upon which the Church would be built. It is also of note that Jesus most assuredly spoke to him in Aramaic, which would mean that Simon whould be renamed Kephas, (Rock). We also know from Jewish custom, and from Scripture that a name change made by God indicated a change in role, and authority. Abram had his name and his authority changed by God when God changed his name to Abraham. Simon was renamed Kephas, (Petros) by God. Simon the Man like the Popes who succeeded him were like all of us men who sinned. Simon Peter in the Office of Prince of the Apostles acts by the authority given by Christ. It is thus that Catholics differ the individual who when speaking on his own authority, or his own opinion is fallible, and when he is speaking in the office of Pope is then doing so with Christ’s promise that He (Jesus) would guide the Church, and not abandon it. It would be the same thing if a Supreme Court Judge gave a personal opinion of the Law, vs when they gave a ruling from the bench. It is the same person, but the context of private opinon, or official ruling make the actions what they are.

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.