Author Topic: The Catholic religion proved from the Protestant Bible: Nice OLRL article.  (Read 528 times)

Offline Xavier

  • Eternal Father, through Mary's Immaculate Heart, We Offer You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Your Dearly Beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ in Atonement for our sins and those of the Whole World.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5632
  • Thanked: 3987 times
  • Slave of the Risen Jesus in the Holy Sacrifice.
    • Marian Apostolate Life Offering.
  • Religion: St. Thomas' Indult Traditional Roman Catholic.
https://www.olrl.org/apologetics/cathprot.shtml Nice article and must read for Protestant inquirers studying the Catholic Church.

Quote
ANSWERS TO 25 QUESTIONS ON THE
HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
WHICH COMPLETELY REFUTE THE "BIBLE ONLY" THEORY

ONE
Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so?  Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. Also He to Whom all power was given in Heaven and on earth (Matt. 28-18) promised to give them the Holy Spirit (John 14-26) and to be with them Himself till the end of the world (Mat. 28-20).

COMMENT: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for his followers.

TWO
How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament?  A Few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Sts. Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is recorded.

COMMENT: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.

THREE
Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded?   The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.

Rom. 10-17: So then faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the word of God.
Matt. 28-19: Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Mark. 16-20: And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
Mark 16-15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and PREACH the gospel to every creature.
COMMENT: Thus falls the entire basis of the "Bible-only" theory.

FOUR
Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains?   Our Lord commanded his Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matt. 28-20); His Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines:

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.
John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
COMMENT: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lord's religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christ's teaching were indispensable?

FIVE
Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christ's "unwritten word"?   The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.
John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written Amen.
COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.

SIX
What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught?   The Church has carefully conserved this "word of mouth" teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth.

2 Thes. 2-15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
2 Tim. 2-2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete.

SEVEN
Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written?   This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension. St. John's fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A. D.

COMMENT: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.

EIGHT
When was the New Testament placed under one cover?   In 397 A. D. by the Council of Carthage, from which it follows that non-Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available.

COMMENT: Up to 397 A. D., some of the Christians had access to part of the New Testament; into this situation, how would the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory have fitted?

NINE
Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament?   Prior to 397 A. D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations. The persecutions against the Church, which had gained new intensity, prevented these New Testament books from being properly authenticated and placed under one cover. However, this important work was begun after Constantine gave peace to Christianity in 313 A.D., allowing it to be practiced in the Roman Empire.

COMMENT: This again shows how utterly impossible was the "Bible-only" theory, at least up to 400 A. D.

TEN
What other problem confronted those who wished to determine the contents of the New Testament?   Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many other books had been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence the Catholic Church made a thorough examination of the whole question; biblical scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying the original languages of New Testament writings.

COMMENT: According to the present-day "Bible-only" theory, in the above circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early Christians to read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination, judge which were and which were not divinely inspired.

ELEVEN
Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament?   Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.

Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not.
If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question.

COMMENT: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that they received the New Testament.

TWELVE

Why is it impossible for modern non-Catholics to check over the work done by the Church previous to 400. A. D.?   The original writings were on frail material called papyrus, which had but temporary enduring qualities. While the books judged to be inspired by the Catholic Church were carefully copied by her monks, those rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for lack of further interest in them.

COMMENT. What then is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why not now?

THIRTEEN

Would the theory of private interpretation of the New Testament have been possible for the year 400 A. D.?   No, because, as already stated, no New Testament as such was in existence.

COMMENT: If our non-Catholic brethren today had no Bibles, how could they even imagine following the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory; but before 400 A. D., New Testaments were altogether unavailable.

FOURTEEN

Would the private interpretation theory have been possible between 400 A. D. and 1440 A. D., when printing was invented [by Catholic Johannes Gutenberg who published St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible as the First Ever Printed Book! Also thanks to the many innovative technologies pioneered by Catholic Monks and Friars of the Catholic Church in Catholic Christian Europe!]? No, the cost of individual Bibles written by hand was prohibitive; moreover, due to the scarcity of books, and other reasons, the ability to read was limited to a small minority. The Church used art, drama and other means to convey Biblical messages.

COMMENT: To have proposed the "Bible-only" theory during the above period would obviously have been impracticable and irrational ...

Reduced to practice their theory means this: Read the Bible and believe as you like; if you like Martin Luther's theory, follow it; if you prefer John Calvin's Christianity, embrace it. If you think that Campbell, or Dowie, or Mrs. Eddy, or the Adventists have "discovered" the truth, have succeeded in doing what Christ must have failed to do, then take them as your guide. If the theory of none of these persons suits you, make up one yourself[!]
To understand God's Plan for Humanity, and how He has provided the means by which we can minimize the Coming Great Tribulation, read: https://maryrefugeofholylove.com/

Offer your Life to Jesus and Mary: TEXT OF THE LIFE OFFERING, adapted: Dear Lord Jesus, before the Holy Trinity, Our Heavenly Mother, and the whole Heavenly Court, united with Your most Precious Blood and Your Sacrifice on Calvary, We hereby Offer our whole Lives to the Intention of Your Sacred Heart and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Together with our life, we place at Your disposal all Holy Masses, all our Holy Communions, all Rosaries, all acts of consecration, all our good deeds, all our sacrifices, and the suffering of our entire life for the Adoration and Supplication of the Holy Trinity, for Unity in our Holy Mother Church, for the Holy Father, Pope Francis the First; and for His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. For His Eminence Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, His Excellency Metropolitan Hilarion, as well as His Eminence Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, that they may re-unite their flocks with the Roman Catholic Church, and there may soon be but One Fold and One Shepherd. For all the 220+ Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, for all 6000+ Bishops of the Universal Church that they may be true Apostles and Shepherds; and for the 400,000+ Priests, the 700,000+ Nuns, 50,000+ Monks, 100,000+ seminarians, that they may all become the Saints the Divine Will wishes them to be; for all the 1.35 Billion Members of the Church, the Millions of Catholic Catechumens and Children to be born and baptized in this Decade; we pray for good Priestly and Religious Vocations, for All Lay Apostolates, and All Souls until the end of the world. O my Jesus, please accept our life Sacrifice and our offerings and give us Your grace that we may all persevere obediently until death. Amen." https://marianapostolate.com/life-offering/

"Mother of God, Co-Redemptrix of the world, pray for us" [Promise: 1000 Souls from Purgatory]"This short prayer, this insistent prayer, every time it is said, sets free from Purgatory 1000 Souls, who reach the Eternal Joy, the Eternal Light"(!). http://www.jesusmariasite.org/jesus-pray-my-children-that-the-fifth-marian-dogma-be-proclaimed/
 
The following users thanked this post: Lynne, Michael Wilson

Offline abc123

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1094
  • Thanked: 1042 times
  • Religion: Reformed
One: But the Apostles DID write down what Our Lord did and said for the reason that "we would know that Jesus is the Son of God and that by this knowledge we would be saved."- John 20:31

Two: You're assuming that the other Apostles who didn't write anything down either preached other doctrine that we cannot know except that the Church teaches it or that what the the Gospel writers, Sts. Paul, Peter, Jude, John somehow did not provide everything we needed to know.

Three: What is the Gospel? Is it not found in the Word of God written? You're assuming that Apostolic Tradition is somehow not synonymous with or is found outside of the Scripture. Of course this necessitates an infallible church authority to fill in the gaps since what we have written isn't sufficient. So how do we then test that which we hear from the Church? Do we not refer to Scripture? Your entire New Testament basis for the papacy is Matthew 16:18. You refer to the Scripture as your proof that Scripture is insufficient.

Four: How do we know what this nebulous "everything" is? Did Christ teach the disciples the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception? Papal Infallibility? The Assumption? Purgatory? If you answer 'yes', how do you know? Because Rome tells you so. Let's read on one more verse: but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. This speaks to the sufficiency of not only St. John's Gospel but also to all of Scripture.

Five: See above. To take the last verses of St. John as proof that an extra Biblical source of Revelation is needed for salvation is terrible exegesis.

Six: More assumptions that the written tradition and this oral tradition somehow represent different strains of tradition. We have no reason to accept Rome's claims based on reading your interpretation back into the text.

Seven: You assume that what was preached before the canonization of Scripture was somehow contradictory or was not found in the Scripture when it was finally written. You have no justification for reading Rome's claims into the "oral tradition", especially since so many of Rome's later claims about Herself are absent from the written record.

Eight: Weak

Most of the statements are just restatements of the previous points. I would suggest that if you are really interested in strong Protestant objections to these points that you look into the writings are R.C Sproul and the debates of James White.


« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 09:09:08 AM by abc123 »
"I once laboured hard for the free will of man until the grace of God at length overcame me."- St. Augustine
 

Offline St.Justin

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2761
  • Thanked: 1203 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
"One: But the Apostles DID write down what Our Lord did and said for the reason that "we would know that Jesus is the Son of God and that by this knowledge we would be saved."- John 20:31"

It is nice to know that this is all we need to know and understand in order to attain our salvation. You of course also know that this means we don't need the rest of the Bible.
 

Offline St.Justin

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2761
  • Thanked: 1203 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
"Six: More assumptions that the written tradition and this oral tradition somehow represent different strains of tradition. We have no reason to accept Rome's claims based on reading your interpretation back into the text."

Below is why we need Tradition. Without an authoritative explanation one may not get the full meaning of what they read.

from: https://www.ourcatholicprayers.com/aquinas-on-the-lords-prayer.html
A SHORT EXPLANATION OF THE WHOLE PRAYER

By way of brief summary, it should be known that the Lord's Prayer contains all that we ought to desire and all that we ought to avoid. Now, of all desirable things, that must be most desired which is most loved, and that is God.

Therefore, you seek, first of all, the glory of God when you say: "Hallowed be Thy name." You should desire three things from God, and they concern yourself. The first is that you may arrive at eternal life. And you pray for this when you say: "Thy kingdom come."

The second is that you will do the will of God and His justice. You pray for this in the words: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

The third is that you may have the necessaries of life. And thus you pray: "Give us this day our daily bread." Concerning all these things the Lord says: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God," which complies with the second, "and all these things shall be added unto you,"(Matt 6:33) as in accord with the third.

We must avoid and flee from all things which are opposed to the good. For, as we have seen, good is above all things to be desired. This good is fourfold. First, there is the glory of God, and no evil is contrary to this: "If thou sin, what shalt thou hurt Him? And if thou do justly, what shall thou give Him?"(Job 35:6-7) Whether it be the evil inasmuch as God punishes it, or whether it be the good in that God rewards it--all redound to His glory.

The second good is eternal life, to which sin is contrary: because eternal life is lost by sin. And so to remove this evil we pray: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

The third good is justice and good works, and temptation is contrary to this, because temptation hinders us from doing good. We pray, therefore, to have this evil taken away in the words: "Lead us not into temptation."

The fourth good is all the necessaries of life, and opposed to this are troubles and adversities. And we seek to remove them when we pray: "But deliver us from evil. Amen. 
 

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2104
  • Thanked: 1467 times
  • Religion: Creed-affirming, sacramental, Yahweh-worshipping Christian Gnostic
One: But the Apostles DID write down what Our Lord did and said for the reason that "we would know that Jesus is the Son of God and that by this knowledge we would be saved."- John 20:31

A claim regarding texts which only exists because both it and they were handed down through a tradition. Incidentally, a tradition that used these texts in a liturgical context of sacraments. I'll never get over how Protestants manage to keep a straight face when talking about their take on the reason for treasuring a list of books that just happens to agree with the very one decided upon by none other than post-Constantinian bishops of ye old pagan Whore of Babylon churches of the Roman and Orthodox lineage.

Quote
Two: You're assuming that the other Apostles who didn't write anything down either preached other doctrine that we cannot know except that the Church teaches it

I'm not assuming anything. I'm going by the actual practice of the churches actually founded by the Apostles, kept from the earliest textual and archaeological record down to this day: practices like the Eucharistic sacrifice, sacramentalism, altars in churches, an ordained priesthood, veneration of Mary and the Saints, infant baptism, not to mention the Apostolic doctrine of justification.

St. Ignatius Of Antioch, disciple of St. John the Apostle, ca. 110 A.D.

Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion of Christ. ...

... Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to show forth the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to the will of God.

Quote
or that what the the Gospel writers, Sts. Paul, Peter, Jude, John somehow did not provide everything we needed to know.

Matthew 23:2-3: The scribes and the Pharisees are seated in the chair of Moses. Therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 

They didn't. The universal practices of the Apostolic churches from Rome to the far reaches of India, which can no more be reconstructed from the Bible alone than can Judaism, demonstrate this to be fact. You're Bibliolaters.

Quote
Three: What is the Gospel? Is it not found in the Word of God written? You're assuming that Apostolic Tradition is somehow not synonymous with or is found outside of the Scripture.

Scripture is obviously, by logical necessity, a part of a tradition that transcends it. You're not even putting the cart before the horse: you're conveniently letting the horse pull the cart while pretending it doesn't exist.

Quote
Of course this necessitates an infallible church authority to fill in the gaps since what we have written isn't sufficient.

"What we have written" is a priori not sufficient without an authority to vouch for its Apostolicity and inerrancy in the first place.

Quote
So how do we then test that which we hear from the Church? Do we not refer to Scripture? Your entire New Testament basis for the papacy is Matthew 16:18. You refer to the Scripture as your proof that Scripture is insufficient.

I test it based on my living faith and the fulfillment of the promises it makes. The sacraments work.  Get over it. 30 years of "faith alone" and Protestantism couldn't get me  for one moment into the state of grace like the Church through her sacraments did in one instant. You would know it if you were in it.

Quote
Four: How do we know what this nebulous "everything" is? Did Christ teach the disciples the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception? Papal Infallibility? The Assumption? Purgatory? If you answer 'yes', how do you know? Because Rome tells you so.

Nope. Try again. Try harder.

Quote
Let's read on one more verse: but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. This speaks to the sufficiency of not only St. John's Gospel but also to all of Scripture.

Err ... no, it doesn't. The verse is emphatically referring to its own text, the Gospel of John, and you have no way of ascertaining the veracity of this text by its own authority, divorced from the context of the living, teaching Church. You, moreover, contradict your own self by the very acceptance of the canon of scripture, which is not contained within it. And you contradict it again every time you apply a "hemeneutic" to interpret it.


Quote
Five: See above. To take the last verses of St. John as proof that an extra Biblical source of Revelation is needed for salvation is terrible exegesis.

It's not a proof of any kind, and that you would stretch it beyond all logic to see it as one leads me to believe any further discussion with you may be utterly without point.

Quote
Six: More assumptions that the written tradition and this oral tradition somehow represent different strains of tradition. We have no reason to accept Rome's claims based on reading your interpretation back into the text.

And we have even less reason to accept YOURS.

Quote
Seven: You assume that what was preached before the canonization of Scripture was somehow contradictory or was not found in the Scripture when it was finally written. You have no justification for reading Rome's claims into the "oral tradition", especially since so many of Rome's later claims about Herself are absent from the written record.

Irony's a bitch.

What you Protestants teach today, namely the Satanic doctrine of  forensic justification by means of imputed righteousness through faith alone, by means of the legal loophole of penal substitution to vengeful deity, is nowhere to be found in the annals of Christianity before the Reoformation. Yes, it would have been utterly incomprehensible to pre-Biblical Christians, and your iconoclasm, shunning of invocation of saitns and angels, your aversion to the Mother of God, your disdain for all the "pagan" smells and bells, not to mention "sola scriptura" would even have been .



« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 04:58:22 AM by Kreuzritter »
 

Offline St.Justin

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2761
  • Thanked: 1203 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
The Waldensians (also known as Waldenses ( / w ɔː l ˈ d ɛ n s iː z , w ɒ l -/ ), Vallenses , Valdesi or Vaudois ) were an ascetic movement within Christianity , founded by Peter Waldo in Lyon around 1173. The Waldensian movement first appeared in Lyon in the late 1170s [ citation needed ] and quickly spread to the Cottian Alps between what is today France and Italy .