This is a letter I composed to my cousin, whom I attended Catholic grade school with. I hope it can possibly help others who may have to defend the faith themselves. The Catholic Church is dear to my heart and soul. It is my deepest hope that one day, all fallen away Catholics will come home.
This is what I have found concerning Sola Scriptura, and authority, as was discussed in our phone conversation. I haven’t bothered to try to explain any of this stuff for quite some time, at least not since having Gaby I would guess. Just too many kids, and way to much to do, to bother with what non-Catholic think about our faith. You on the other hand have raised questions and comments that you have heard outside the Church so I felt like I needed to address those issue with you. I really feel, by some of your comments that you have been told some things that are outright malicious. Understandably some protestants spread rumors and false allegations not realizing they are not based on facts. However, spreading these rumors and false allegations are not very Christian. I understand these are things you have been told, and our lack of instruction growing up, left you very vulnerable to deceptive marketing. Take what I say knowing I say them in love and in despair that you have been led astray by well meaning, yet misguided Shepard’s. With that said, let me begin with what I believe the Bible has to say on a few topics which you are at odds with the Church over.
You seem to be struggling with all the "rules" and "laws" of Catholicism. This can be a misguided struggle. If we assume that we have free will, which I doubt you will contest, then the question boils down to truth: there either is truth, or there isn't. If there is truth, then neither the Bible nor any Church can "tell you how to live your life". They can at most explain what happens when you live your life in the right and wrong way, and advise you on what to do. You still are responsible for the decisions you make.
In this respect, its like physics: no physics book nor any physicist can tell you not to jump off of a building. They all explain what happens when you, say, drop an object. Physicists will tell you that you'll splatter if you jump off of a tall building, and may advise you against it. But you still have free will, and therefore they don't stop you from jumping off of a tall building. In short, you can lead your life in any way you choose, but don't blame the experts for telling you that it's a grave error to jump off of a building.
So the most important question, then, becomes, "whom should I trust?" In my opinion, it's best to trust a physicist who has a broad understanding of physics, understands the data from the experiments that we have done throughout the history of physics, and has subjected his own work to strong peer review. I certainly don't want to entrust my life to someone who has only read a physics book, however detailed and clear, and is trusting only his own judgment about what it means.
You apparently want to learn authentic Christianity, not "new traditions" that have been "made up", but "the real deal": the truth. If that’s the case, you need to evaluate where you are most likely to find the truth. "Whom should I trust?" is again the relevant question.
You are currently involved with people who read the Bible and interpret it according to their belief that the Paraclete guides them. There are approximately 33,000 Protestant Christian denominations that practice this mode of thought. It is, for the most part, their one and only point of agreement. Clearly not all of them can possess the truth. And because they believe that the Paraclete guides them, they reject ancient traditions, and by doing so create new ones. Think about it. Why is it that none of the ancient Churches looked evangelical?
On the other hand, there is the Holy Catholic Church, which has exactly the same goals that you do, the preservation of the truth of authentic Christianity. What distinguishes it most from all other churches is its vigorous defense of the Deposit of Faith. Doctrine is only defined after comparison against scripture, the writings of the fathers, the earlier councils, and, secondarily, to philosophy in general. Innovation of doctrine is rejected out of hand as repugnant to the mission of the Church.
So it seems obvious to me that the Roman Catholic Church is more likely than any evangelical church to achieve the goals which you seek to achieve. Other churches exist because they achieve different goals. They are more likely to achieve goals of personal intellectual aggrandizement, or of the anesthetizing effect of blind faith(something that is a heresy in Roman Catholicism -- faith should never be blind), but none of them are more likely to capture, to the greatest extent possible, the truth of Christ. 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;
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? You said you go only by what is in the Bible. But the New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.
Since the Bible is incomplete, by its own admission, the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition is often used. It is worth noting to you that Sacred Tradition NEVER contradicts scripture. If you feel it does in certain spots, I would ask you to jot them down and bring them up for discussion. You see, 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.
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 thoroughly incomplete. Problems also 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; 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. The minister at First Christian on Broadway did not have this advantage. He depends on writings that are at best 500 years old and can no way know accurately what the ancient languages were telling us. For example, did you know that in its true form, the wording in the bible for “eat my flesh”, the actual wording in its ancient form meant to literally CHEW? According to your "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.
Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council (One of those councils you speak so negatively about) 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. I don’t think they had time to develop new tradition as you have been taught that each new council did. 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. 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. It is also impossible for them to accept the bible in their Church pew or on their book shelf, if they still believe that the Church is not infallible. 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?
It is also noteworthy, that it was Catholic monks; in many cases they spent their entire lives to give the world personally-penned copies of the Scriptures, before printing was invented. In spite of this, the Catholic Church is accused by many protestant ministers preaching to their flock on Sunday mornings, of having tried to destroy the Bible; had she desired to do this, she had 1500 years within which to do so. I mentioned to you that if the Church wanted to, it had the chance itself to CHANGE scripture. You went off in another direction about the Church instead adding Tradition so I did not get a chance to go into this.Obviously, with the Church being the ones who penned the Bible, they had many a chance to change scripture to bend it to its desirable effect. It would have been much more believable than “adding tradition”. 2000 years later, no one would have been any wiser to them falsifying the scriptures. If they were as powerful and evil as most protestant ministers like to believe, the Church would certainly have destroyed anything that didn’t suit their purpose. But instead, the Church penned the inspired word of God, as it was, knowing that the Bible itself pointed to the existence of tradition, and in their possibly foolish thinking, they thought the people would be smart enough to understand where scripture itself points out the need for tradition.
Who gave the Reformers anyway the authority to change over from the one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd program, to that of the "Bible-only theory"?
St. Paul said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Since Luther, consequences have followed from the use of the "Bible-only" theory and its personal interpretation.
St. Paul foretold: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears.". RED FLAG Chris, this sounds exactly what you are talking about when you claim that the gospels speak to each of us according to our own state of time. St Paul tells us doctrine is sound and we should not look to make our own ideas out of it and nor should a minister tell you from the pulpit to take out of it what you want. Truth is truth. A story may hit you differently at a certain point in your life, but the moral will ALWAYS remain the same. The basis of the story and moral will always remain the same. The "Bible-only" theory may indeed cater to the self-need of the individual, but it certainly does not conduce to the acquisition of Divine truth.
Now that the New Testament is complete and available, what insolvable problem remains? The impossibility of the Bible to explain itself and the consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of private interpretation. Hence it is indisputable that the Bible must have an authorized interpreter. You claim that the Holy Spirit guides us each to understand the Bible as it applies to US. You also answered my question about those who use the bible to condone homosexuality, abortion, birth control, etc, by saying it is Satan who puts those things in our head. But Chris, how many people honestly pray to the Holy Spirit to inspire them, and they all come up with lame reasons to justify their acceptance of abortion? They do so in good faith in most cases. You are right it’s Satan who has worked his way into their minds. But how do we know if what WE believe the Holy Spirit is telling us, is true or not? We need an authority to ensure that it IS TRUE and that we are not falling prey to Satan. Satan’s greatest mastermind was convincing Luther to depart from the Church and thus leaving open the door to multiple ways to interpret scripture. There must be ONE truth.
Even scripture tells us this.
P>2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. SO THEN CHRIS, HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION?2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Chris, do you go by the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to God as is truth? Because that is the only way you can defend the Bible only theory.
The Holy Spirit, acting through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official interpretations of; God's law and God's word.
Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.
Matt. 16-18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regardless of what you may think about the Catholic Church, you should at least be able to admit that our system gets results in the way of UNITY of rule and unity of faith, as I already stated, ONE Faith ONE Fold and ONE Shepherd. Because there is so much different interpretation of the Bible; there is so much different interpretation of the Bible because there is so much wrong interpretation; there is so much wrong interpretation because the system of interpreting is radically wrong. You cannot have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and one Baptism, by allowing every man and every woman to distort and pervert the Scriptures to suit his or her own pet theories. Without Divine aid, could the Catholic Church have maintained her one Faith, one Fold, and one Shepherd? Not any more than the non-Catholic sects have done. They are a proof of what happens when, without Divine aid, groups strive to do the humanly impossible.
The Bible also teaches that the rulers of Christ's Church have authority which must be obeyed in matters of religion.
The apostles repeatedly claimed this authority: Gal. 1-8; John 1-10; Acts 15, 23 and 28. Hence the laws or precepts of the true Church are founded upon the same authority as the commandments of God. For the Church of Christ has authority to act in his Name.I could have gotten the wrong idea about what you were trying to say, but it sounded like you were trying to say that NO Church or man could tell you what to believe or how to live your life- that you yourself could make those decisions. All of the above verses, and there are plenty of them, show that we are to accept authority.
The Bible teaches that not the Bible itself, but the Holy Ghost was the teacher of the Apostles.
John 14-26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things. and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 16-13: How be it when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth . . .
Acts 1-8: But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.
In consequence, it was necessary for the true Church to be infallible, being as St. Paul said (l Timothy 5-15) "the pillar and ground of the truth." Notice that the Holy Spirit is going to show the truth to the apostles and THEY are going to take that truth out into the world. The Bible doesn’t say that the Holy Spirit is going to go out over all the earth to show EACH and every person their own private truth. Nor does it say that the Holy Spirit will wait 1500 years before providing the truth to a new church.
The Bible also teaches that the Church has Christ always WITH IT and the Holy Ghost always to guide it-not only during the first century but during all future ages.
Matt. 28-20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you ALWAYS, EVEN UNTO THE END of the world. Amen.
Notice again, that the apostles are being instructed to go and teach what God commanded them. Not to tell people that to let the Holy Spirit tell them what is good for them- but to teach them the Truth as it is handed down.
John 14-16: And I will pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you FOREVER.
It would be an insult to Christ and the Holy Spirit to say that God's Church fell into error and had to be reformed by Luther, Calvin and other men or women. We read in the Bible that it will prevail.
You mentioned something about the Church being in existence since the beginning, but you didn’t give me a chance to ask you what you think happened to it. The Bible teaches that the visible Church of Christ has had and will ever have uninterrupted existence.
Matt. 28, 19-20: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost . . . lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.
Who was Jesus telling He would be with always? He certainly wasn’t telling St Peter He would be with him always as he carried on his mission. Peter would one day die and his mission on earth would be over. Jesus was speaking to His followers as in relation to their mission to establish an unending ever present Church which He would preside over.
Matt. 16-18: . . . and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The theory that Christ's Church, which began with Christ; failed-became non-existent for 1000 or more years- and then was revived by either Luther, Calvin, Knox or some other man or woman, is ridiculous and untrue. Luther had some genuine problems with the Church. They stemmed from priests and bishops who had gone astray. But Christ also told us to do as they tell us, not as they do. Luther should have fought from within the Church for these changes, not run amuck and start centuries of division and thousands of denominations that all claim to hold the truth. Luther himself fell for Satan’s dirty trick that we did not need the Church. Luther was in effect, conned into believing he could be greater than the Catholic Church. Thus the man left serving Christ to start a division that will be felt through all the days of the earth.
The Bible teaches that Christ ascribed to his Church qualities and gave to it the names that proved it to be a VISIBLE organization with VISIBLE UNITY among its followers.
Romans 12-5: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Eph. 4-3 to 5-3: Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4. There is ONE BODY, AND ONE SPIRIT even as ye are called in one hope of your calling. 5. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, etc.
John 10-16: And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
This shows that there is but one Church. Others have taken root. There is one Flock, other sheep have strayed and created their own flock. Jesus, that guy hanging on the cross, wishes for us all to belong to the SAME flock? Now if the Flock he wanted us all to belong to was the Baptist Flock or the Pentecostal Flock, why did it take so long for that Flock to be established?
Rom. 12, 4-5: For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office, etc.
John 17-21: That they may be one, as thou Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that (as a consequence) the world may believe that Thou hast sent me.
In many places of scripture, Christ's Church is compared to a house, a body, a city built on a mountain, a sheepfold, etc.; but these are all visible things. Hence Christ's Church besides being one spirit is also "One Body." The Catholic Church alone has this two-fold unity. An "invisible" theory is therefore false on the face of it. Contrast the unity of Faith, Fold and Shepherd in the Catholic Church with the dissenting, contradictory tenets of the many Protestant organizations and the divinity of the Catholic Church becomes obvious and certain.
Oh, and BTW, you said even women can preach. I do not doubt this, but in the Catholic Church where it is primarily the priest we see as the Shepard, it is no where in the Bible that a WOMAN can be a priest. Priests were men back in those days. If Jesus had felt that women could also be priests, He Himself would have said so. Your Church goes by only scripture, and yet the fact that Jesus did not call an end to this sexist practice does not stop your denomination from teaching something other than what is NOT in the Bible? In fact, your Church has set it’s own Tradition.
You also brought up the point of any man or woman being able to preach Gods word. For the most part I agree with this. We all have a right to witness, and the Catholic Church itself calls us all to minister. But the Bible teaches that the Apostles appointed LAWFUL successors to carry on their work.
Titus, 1-5: For this cause left I thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that was wanting, and ordain elders (i. e. priests) in every city, as I had appointed thee.
Acts, 13, 2 and 3: As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have recalled them. 3. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.
St. Paul had been selected by Christ Himself; yet he was later ordained by Apostolic authority. By what right then does a Dowie, Russel, Calvin, Knox, or their agents assume the role of ruler, teacher, founder of a "Christian" Church? The apostles were diligent in their duty of fasting and praying for all those “called” to the priesthood, and they laid hands on them. This was an obvious sign of apostolic succession. There would have been no other reason for the laying on of hands back then as there would be now for protestants. The laying on of hands instituted the priesthood.
You seemed to get a bit upset at the thought that we Catholics think a priest can do something that a Pentecostal can not do. The main thing to remember is that we do not believe it is the priest doing it. He is more of a conduit, along with the people attending Mass also participating. It is God working THROUGH the priest which accomplishes Transubstantiation. And the reason a protestant minister can not do it is as explained in the above verses, they have not been ordained through Apostolic succession. They are not in full communion with the Church. They do not have the direct link to the Apostles created by Christ and maintained for nearly 2000 years. I hope you were able to read this at your convienience, taking consideration to what may seem like new territory for you. It is often hard to allow ourselves to even try to see where we may or may not have been given the entire truth on something. I feel that if you allow yourself to understand where you are mistaken on Church teaching, you will come to the conclusion that just maybe you have not been told the entire truth about the Catholic Church, and just maybe, the Church you grew up in, is not the horrible institution you have been led believe it to be.My Favorite Web Sites
www.spiritdaily.com
www.glennbeck.com
www.catholicexchange.com
My Favorite Things About Being Catholic
