Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?

A brief review of some historical facts should clear up this issue. The Bible is a collection of sacred writings that were compiled into book format centuries after the death of the original writers. When the Apostle John wrote these verses, the Bible as we know it today had not been compiled yet. Therefore, his words could not possibly be applied to the entire collection of writings today known as the Bible. John was referring specifically to the Book of Revelation.

Additionally, even though Revelation is traditionally placed last in the Bible, most Biblical scholars do not believe that it was the last book to be written among the compiled records contained in the Bible. If your reasoning is true, then those Books would also have to be removed from the Bible and discarded as false.

Even J. Veron McGee, a wonderful protestant preacher concurs with this.

 

Greetings,

You said: Philip use SS when speaking to the Ethiopian Eunuch in the same way. What did Phiip do? Appeal to the Catholic Magesteriam?

Response: What a wonderful example. Philip WAS part of the CAtholic Magisterium, and like all the Magisterium this evangelist used scripture to explain his point. This is a wonderful example of the magisterium at work. Imagine this: Philip was explaining Jesus using the Old Testament and Tradition(his experience of the Risen Christ--No new testament, remember).
peace

 

TP,

It is nothing less than stunning the arrogance of the Catholic Church. They actually claim...with a straight face...that we owe the cultic Teaching Majesterium of the Catholic Church a debt of gratitude for giving to the world the scriptures of God.

Ignoring of course the fact that the scriptures were all inscripturated...at the very least...about 300 years prior to the "Catholic Church" coming into existance, and those now known as the old testament a much much longer period.

Utter nonsense. Complete lunacy. The scriptures were inscripturated hundreds of years prior to Constantines decisions which resulted in the "pagan/religious" entity known as the Catholic Church to come into existance.

The fact that Almighty God chose to use Catholic people to copy or have a part in compiling His scriptures puts the Catholic Church in the same league as the Donkey whom God used one time to help in a situation in the old testament.

Do you believe we should all now bow down to Donkeys for doing something that Almighty God was actually the author of?

Now? No, the Holy Spirit isnt. SOME spirit might be involved, but not the Holy Spirit.

Our understanding that the Holy Spirit of God brought about the inscripturating of the scriptures is no justification for lifting up the Majesterium of the Catholic Church.

Regarding the Holy Spirit infallibly orchestrating the inscripturating of and compiling of the scriptures we all agree. But to go the next step and say that we now have justification for the absurd and cultic teachings of the Majestierium is exceedingly problematic.

Nonsense.

Grace and peace to you, in the midst of your confusion,

Mike

 

"Most Biblical scholars." Yeah I know. Those are "most Biblical scholars" that TP quoted that denied the authorship of Daniel, put the date of Daniel at 165 B.C., even though Daniel lived about 435 years before that! "Most Biblical Scholars!" Yeah right! Most of your liberal scholars who want to tear down the Bible, deny its integrity, because they do not believe in the supernatural. The date for the writing of the Book of Revelation is conservatively put at 98 A.D. and is the last book of the Bible to be written. Being the last book of the Bible to be written, the verses not only apply to the Book of Revelation specifically, but the entire books of the Bible in general.
DHK

 

Nice diversionary attempt, but it wont work. And btw, why stop there? Why not also say that that passage of scripture only applies to men, and not women, since it says

THAT would be just as silly as what you did post.

The truth is...That was then. This is now. God knows the beginning for the end, and the end from the begoinning.

They had all the word of God that was available at that time...and it was called the scriptures.

Tody we have all the word of God that is avaiable now...and it is called the scriptures.

And so, this is just as true for us as it was for them:

NOT all traditions. NOT all oral teaching. NOT all that the church fathers taught. NOT all that a hierarchial monstrocity will dictate.

All scripture.

God will continue to allow false religious systems to flail about in their falsehoods, superstitions, traditions and contradictions to His truth.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]The bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura D28guy, and if you will back up to verses 14 and 15, you will see how you and I once took this verse 16 way out of context, 14 and 15 states by Paul: But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

You read Paul telling Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition; the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So D28guy, must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition, which is handed down by word of mouth, which Paul states in 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. Paul also disagees with your sola scriprtura here in his letter to the Thessalonians in 2 Thess 2:15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples in 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. The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. Jesus commissioned them, saying in Matthew 28:19 to 19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations …

And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction per Romans 10:17: So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. The Church would always be the living teacher. It is a mistake to limit "Christ’s word" to the written word only or to suggest that all his teachings were reduced to writing. The Bible nowhere supports either notion.

Further, it is clear that the oral teaching of Christ would last until the end of time see 1 Peter 1:25. But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. Note that the word has been preached—that is, communicated orally. This would endure. It would not be
supplanted by a written record like the Bible (supplemented, yes, but not supplanted), and would continue to have its own authority.

Again this is made clear when the apostle Paul tells Timothy in 2 Timothy 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. Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain.

 

So what. This has nothing to do with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. In fact if you read the context it has to do with local church discipline. It doesn't have anything to do with Peter or the apostles. Again, non sequitor. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the context shows that it has everything to do with the apostles since that's who Christ is specifically addressing (Doh! ) They are the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20) (Of course, by extension it does have to do with church discipline as the bishops are the successors to the apostles)

Do you know the meaning of this verse? Probably not. </font>[/QUOTE]Do you know the meaning? Personally, I think the verse is pretty self-explanatory. It's also interesting that you dismissed the plain meaning out-of-hand without providing us with a creative alternate "interpretation" (but I'm sure that will be forthcoming... )

As you will rush to consult your favorite Protestant commentaries in the vain attempt to explain away the clear meaning of the text (sorta' like you do with the John 6 passage, and many other Bible passages for that matter). Barring that I'm sure you'll come up with something creative.

Again non sequitor.
Only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. Even the Jews recognized that fact.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course thou art begging the question since in John 20:21-23 Christ Himself empowers the apostles to do the same:
"If you [ie the APOSTLES] forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain them, they are retained." John 20:23.

 

DoubtingThomas,

You said...

Actually, if my understanding is correct the *official* spelling of that oh so repetitiously used "female teenspeak" word is...

...with a descending tone and the accompanying look of disbelief at the adults cluelessness.

Mike

 

I think it's a Homer Simpsonesque "DOH!"

 

Violet,

Is that how its spelled on that show?(I've never seen that Homer show)

It seems like I've seen it written as "Duh" before. Maybe in some comic strip or something.

Maybe both will do!

Mike

 

Most Roman Catholic Churches have pew booklets that have the Bible readings (At any given Sunday mass, there is usually 1 reading from the OT, 1 from the Gospels, and 1 from the Epistles) and responsive readngs in them.

Many Presbyterian churches I've been to don't have a lot of members carrying Bibles either. Come to think of it, the Jews and early Christians of Paul's day didn't carry bibles/OT scriptures to worship with them either. I think it's somewhat unrighteous of us to judge other individuals based on whether they're carrying a Bible under their arm on Sunday mornings. Besides, I've always felt that a Bible doesn't belong under your arm. It belongs on your bedside where you should be reading it in your own home.

 

Most Roman Catholic Churches have pew booklets that have the Bible readings (At any given Sunday mass, there is usually 1 reading from the OT, 1 from the Gospels, and 1 from the Epistles) and responsive readngs in them.

Many Presbyterian churches I've been to don't have a lot of members carrying Bibles either. Come to think of it, the Jews and early Christians of Paul's day didn't carry bibles/OT scriptures to worship with them either. I think it's somewhat unrighteous of us to judge other individuals based on whether they're carrying a Bible under their arm on Sunday mornings. Besides, I've always felt that a Bible doesn't belong under your arm. It belongs on your bedside where you should be reading it in your own home. [/QUOTE]
That is only partly true.
What was an Ethiopian Eunuch doing reading the Book of Isaiah, if the didn't carry Scriptures with them.
What did the Bereans have with them if the didn't have the Scritpures search at the synagogue. How did they get there? And how were they made so available to them when the Scripture says they (plural) searched the Scriptures daily.
When Paul was in prison he asked that the Scriptures be brought to him. Obviously they were not just confined to synagogues, and the such, but were carried around in scrolls.

Many Protestant churches make Bibles available to their congregations by putting them in the pews. Though the congregations may not be seen carrying their Bibles to the church, the Bibles are often there.
As you say, many, if not most, in the Protestant camp (especially Baptist) have Bibles at home. Very few Catholics I know of own a Bible, (unless it is a huge family Bible passed down from generations for genealogical purposes). I have seen a couple of those. But they aren't read. They are just decoration pieces.

The fact remains that in general Protestants study the Bible, and Catholics will look at their missals and Catechisms.
DHK

 

Synagogues then, as now, had copies of the OT there. Some had multiple copies for study by members of the congregation.

Copies of the scriptures in those days were large, expensive, heavy, and cumbersom. So to imply that people going to church in Paul's time carried scriptures with them to and fro in a casual manner is simply incorrect.

I would disagree with you that "few Catholics ... own a Bible". Every Catholic I know, even those whom I am unsoure about in regards to salvation, have one or more copies of the Bible at home,and not just the "huge family" Bibles you're referring to. I mean the typical portable paperback kind. In fact, my own mother goes to a "little old ladies" bible study at her Catholic church ever week during the day. Guess what they do? They all bring their bibles with them. So I would disagree with you: the notion that protestants study their bible and catholics do not is by no means a "fact".

 

CONTEXT:
Matthew 18:15-18 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

There is nothing directed to the Apostles here. This is general advice given to the church that will be. It is how a brother should be reconciled to his broher and the church. It is about church discipline and nothing more. Don't read anything more into the Scripture than that which is written.

Christ was also directly addressing either one of the apostles or some of them when he said:
"Get thee behind me Satan."
"If any man will come after me let him first deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me."
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

But Catholics don't like to talk about these verses do they?

The Bible does not contradict itself. We have already established in Mark 2, that only God can forgive sins. Jesus Christ is God, therefore he can forgive sins. A priest cannot forgive sins, neither can the apostles. Only God can forgive sins. The bible does not contradict itself. Do you contradict the Bible. Having said that, what does the Scripture mean? Not so self-explanatory anymore is it?

As you will rush to consult your favorite Protestant commentaries in the vain attempt to explain away the clear meaning of the text (sorta' like you do with the John 6 passage, and many other Bible passages for that matter). Barring that I'm sure you'll come up with something creative. </font>[/QUOTE]Didn't do that, did I? I left that job for you.

Again non sequitor.
Only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. Even the Jews recognized that fact.</font>[/QUOTE]

I am not begging the question. You are avoiding Scripture. The Bible does not contradict itself. It clearly says that only God can forgive sins. This is a truth. To say otherwise is to say that God lies. Man cannot forgive sins. Where in the Book of Acts did any of the Apostles ever forgive sins? Chapter and verse please! Only God can forgive sins! Confession of sins to a priest is heretical. Christ never empowered the disciples to forgive sins. You just don't know what the verse means. You had better (using SS) find out what the verse means.
DHK

 

DKH,

Well of course not.

All those verses that I posted showed about confessing sins to a priest. Since you stated "and it is impossible for man (a priest) to forgive that sin"

Don't you mean to say that only GOD can forgive sins. The Jews were grumbling that Jesus forgave sins. Jesus gave God's authority to the apostles to forgive sins.

I have a personal relationship with Jesus, my Lord and My Savior.

I don't believe that you are in a position to sit in judgement as to what my personal relationship with Jesus is.

Also, using the Bible only philosophy, where does it state to have a personal relationship with Jesus?

 

DKH,

Looking from Scripture, when did Jesus give the apostles the authority to forgive sins?

It was after His resurrection and before His Ascension into Heaven.

So are you saying that Jesus literally meant that Peter was Satan?

 

Mike,
You need to seriously take a history class on religion. A real one, not an IFB one.

Constantine DID NOT start a religion.

Did you not read the copy of the Edict of Milan that I posted? (One from a Methodist site and one from a secular university History Department.)

Also, every bishop in the Catholic Church can trace their ordination back to one of the apostles. How could they do that if as you claim the Catholic Church started with Constantine.

Also why don't you check out the Bible timeline at greatsite.com They are the world’s largest dealer of rare & antique Bibles, ancient Biblical manuscripts, and antiquarian theology books. Oh yes, and they don't appear to be Catholic.

 

Living4Him,

You said this to DHK:

And these are the verses you are referring to from your earlier post...

And I sit again in a state of stunned disbelief.

I keep thinking that it cant get worse...then it does.

I keep thinking "it cant more absurd then THIS?...then it does.

I keep thinking that "this is the worst. The mangling and torturing of the scriptures by the Catholic Church cant get any more comical"...then it does.

The humiliation just keep going to lower and lower levels.

Those verses you posted...confessing sins to a priest.

It stuns the mind. It staggers the normal thinking mind.

Honestly, I imagine that this is the level of absurdidty and the complete absence of normal common sense objectivity and clarity of thinking skills that those "deprogrammers" encounter who rescue cultists from groups like the Hare Krishnas must encounter.

It just keeps getting worse...is their any end to it?

Those keys belong to every born again person. The keys are the gospel. He who accepts the gospel will be "bound" in heaven. He who rejects the gospel remains "loosed" in heaven.

See previous post.

Anyone who is born again has recieved the Holy Spirit. And any born again person can declare someones sins forgiven if and when the person they are counseling enters into relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ through faith alone.

If anyone rejects Christ, any christian can warn them that they are still in their sins, and they have not been remitted, and are retained.

That doesnt have even the tiniest thing to do with confessing sins to a priest for forgiveness. It refers to the new creation anyone becomes when they enter into relationship with, and embrace Christ through faith alone.

That doesnt have the slightest thing to do with confessing sins to a Catholic priest. Paul was simply saying he agreed with the forgiviness extended to an erring brother at Corinth.

The level of confusion and borderline brainwashing that the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church is capable of inflicting on their victims is almost criminal

Sadly, very VERY sadly,

Mike

 

Living4Him,

I have no idea whey IFB means.

I never said he did.

I said...

Do you see it now, or do I have to break it down into itty bitty segments for you?

Stunned again,

Mike