Does the Bible teach that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in its pages?

A Catholic buddy of mine offered this list as a start...

Hmmm...things non-Catholics believe that are not in the Bible. Lets see.
1. Evangelistic appeals.
2. Vacation Bible School.
3. Youth groups and youth pastors.
4. Church picnics,
5. Praise bands.
6. Bible Colleges.
7. Short hair on men, long hair on women. ( I once knew a preacher who insisted Jesus had a crew cut)

A non-Catholic then asked, "Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed?" to which I replied, Sure...2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

So still no one has shown me where the Bible says that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the pages of the Bible. I need to see this if I'm going to abandon my Catholic faith and return to what you have.

In fact...you need to show it to all of us Catholics because so long as you can't, every Catholic reading this has no chance of converting away from our most holy faith. Worse still...it makes it appear that we are right to reject this and (God help us all!), that would mean that you would be wise to seriously consider converting to the Catholic faith ASAP. 

If it's not in the Bible then it violates the very tenet that virtually every n-C doctrine is based upon, that such things must be found in the pages of the Bible. That's probably the fundamental foundation of most n-C belief and teaching in the last 500 years. 

This is a doctrine is one that many non-Catholics hold very dear and I'm serious...if you can show me this and not be refuted by me and my Catholic brothers and sisters, then you have a chance to really dent our Catholic faith. If you can't....well...that dent might be somewhere else.

I have Bibles all over the place right here and you even get the benefit of the 73 book canon to use. I absolutely need to see this. Seriously. 

This article is about getting some non-Catholic to show me where this idea is found within the pages of the Word of God. That's all I'm asking here.

If you want to shake me as a Catholic loose from my faith then this is what it will take.

I've read the Bible several times and cannot find this taught there, even with 73 books to work with.

I re-converted to the Catholic faith in part because of this very thing. If the Catholic Church is wrong on this...it should be pretty simple to show me.  

which is one of the things that a lot of people on both sides of this issue don't understand. My friend John Martignoni has a kinda neat way of explaining that here.

 A friend of mine said that his church takes the Bible literally, but that the Catholic Church doesn't...is that true?

The Fullness of truth is important. In John 14:6 Jesus tells us that He is "the truth" and I for one want nothing less.

I am trying to get you or any of the other n-Cs here that hold that belief to show us where it is found in the Word of God. 

Again though....where is this scriptural mandate that all that we believe and practice must be found in the pages of the Bible? 

I don't understand how people can believe this idea since St. Paul plainly tells Timothy that he's to withdraw from anyone who doesn't walk according to that tradition. If it wasn't inspired, the why would he make a big deal of it?

2nd Thessalonians 3:6 And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

The following article from my blog points out some other ways in which the apostles showed their thinking on Sacred Tradition.
Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

One of the big problems in discussing this topic is that so many different non-Catholics have differing definitions of what this actually means and that makes it really hard.

This is another case where we Catholics have difficulty seeing that often propagated "Unity in essentials" that they speak of.

Perhaps this is also another by product of this very foundational doctrine of post reformation non-Catholic Christianity?

Here are scriptures that one non-Catholic offered me..and my responses.

Quote:

1 Cor 4:6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

Which is a very good point to make about that same interpretation which goes beyond what is written.

Quote:

Luke 1:1-4: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Here again, this does not say that everything that we believe and practice has to be found in the Bible. In fact....it actually is saying that the purpose of Luke's Gospel is to affirm oral tradition.

Quote:

In Matthew 4:1-11. Three times Jesus was tempted by the Devil and each time Jesus replied exactly the same three dangerous words that defeated the Devil: "IT IS WRITTEN" If any one could have used oral tradition, it was Jesus, yet he chose the only safe and sure way to defeat Satan: Scripture.

Still, this does not tell us what you claim it does. It infers much, such as that scripture is useful for resisting temptation, which certainly agrees with 2nd Timothy 3:16, but being useful is not the same as being the only and ultimate authority, which is something that I have not found in the Word of God.

Quote:

Mark 12:24 24 Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?

We've already discussed that ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ, but this also fails to make the claim that would make your belief scriptural.

Quote:

2 Timothy 3:15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Again...where does that even infer a sole and final authority to the Bible? In point of fact, St. Paul is here referring to the Old Testament, which by the same logic that you have used would eliminate the New Testament from any inspired authority. That's just based upon your own logic and not something that either of us believe.

 Quote:

1 John 5:13 13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Does not claim the authority asserted. Another case of interpretation going beyond what is written?

Quote:

2 Timothy 3:16-17: 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Catholics have no problem at all with this verse. We believe that is means exactly what it says and we do not believe it means anything more. This does not claim a final and ultimate authority. Like I said before...it's inspired and useful...

Quote:

Luke 10:26 What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" Jesus expected even his enemies to correctly interpret the Bible by simply reading and studying it.

Again...this refers to the Old Testament and by your own logic would cast aside the New Testament as well as open the door for an interpretation that says we need to read and obey the law to be saved. That won't wok now, will it?

Quote:

Acts 17:11-12 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men. Even though the apostles were inspired with genuine oral revelation, they always directed people to the scriptures for the final determination of truth.

They were talking to Jews about the Messiah. What other source would one expect them to use seeing that even Our Lord pointed out, "For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many."  Still there is no claim of final and ultimate authority here in this passage.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

But by this logic this verse would deny inspiration and acceptance of the New Testament (again) since it specifically refers to the law. Further (and again) this would mean that we are still to obey the law in order to be saved. I know that that is not what most non-Catholics believe nor are trying to say, but that is where it logically and specifically leads. 

Quote:

I maintain that the Bible is the sole INFALLIBLE authority, to which all other authority is subordinate.

If that is true then I would like to see the Biblical passages that lay claim to that authority. Please show me.

Quote:

Sola Scriptura means that the Bible alone is the SUPREME canon of faith. There are other authorities. I, for instance, consider my pastor an authority, but his words should be measured against the Scriptures. If they collide, he is the one who's in error.

Since this belief requires that any such belief has its basis in the Bible, I would like to see the scriptures where that is taught.

And who is the authority that decides when that happens and where do they derive their authority from?

What I believe we see here is a assertion of conclusion drawn from a fallacious premise not supported by the text of the scriptures quoted.  

The reason why I like this one that it occurred to me one day that I do not feel that I have to logically prove this is true in some debate format in order for me to believe this is true. Maybe some other folks are up to this, but I think I will pass myself..

Certainly your prerogative, however, it is not a matter of feelings, which can mislead us, but of facts. Facts as to what given passages of scripture actually say, or do not say in order to ascertain objective truth. If it is untrue that the Bible lays claim to the infallible authority that your definition ascribes to it, then, even by the errant standard of Sola Scripture (as you have defined it) one would have to reject that interpretation.

Quote:

It occurred to me that it is a fact that today I do not hold to any other infallible rule of faith and conduct So logically unless I am convinced that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct out there (be it the Book of Mormon, your pope speaking on faith and morals, or David Koresh), the Bible is my only infallible rule of faith and conduct.

Just because you are convinced does not make it correct. One can be sincerely in error and this is one reason I suspect some people ascribe to this belief.

To me it's fairly simply. If you want me to believe that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the Word of God, then you need to show me precisely where the Bible says that. So far I haven't seen anything like that, but have seen a lot of verses and then interpretations of men telling me they mean something other than what they actually say. 

Quote:

Now of course convincing me that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct is a very difficult sell. Per 1 Thess 5:21 I am to examine everything carefully and hold fast to that which is good. So I don't know how one can convince me that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct except through the rule of faith and conduct that I know is infallible. And I have not seen anything in the Bible that gives me the license to elevate any other rule of faith to the status of infallible.

Yet I have not seen anything that gives anyone the license to elevate the Bible to that status while I do see the simple statement from St. Paul as to what the pillar and ground of the truth is.

1st Timothy 3:15 "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth"

Quote:

I approach this based on the presumption that the Word of God, the Bible is indeed God's Word. Your line of questioning does not appear to accept the presumption, therefore no matter how I would answer, it would not make any difference to you. What your view of the Bible is will be the determining factor of how one receives the Word of God. When you cite the church as being the pillar and support of the truth; it simply means that God has chosen to work through His elect to maintain the purity of His word and all that is contained.

Presumption does not work. It comes to a conclusion even before it has looked at the facts. Would anyone want to be the subject of any case where presumption was the basis for conclusion? Very risky.

Where does 1st Timothy 3:15 even infer such a belief as you assert? I'll have to disagree with your interpretation and go with what the Word of God actually says right there.

Quote:

There is no place in the Bible that explicitly states that all Christian teachings MUST BE in the Bible, but a logical and rational thought will lead you to that conclusion; simply put, where else will you find it?

You express a gross fallacy because that may be your own opinion, but even if one accepts the authority ascribed to the Bible by Sola Scriptura, one would have to reject that.

As to your last question...you already answered that when you touched on 1st Timothy 3:15 above. What does that verse literally tell us is the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

Quote:

You have two premises that must be true for what you said above to be true and is a source of major doctrinal error within your church. First you must put your church above the authority of scripture to make the claim that your church interprets the bible.

Which is the only option supported by the New Testament.

Quote:

Second you presume that "scared tradition" were taught by Jesus adn passed down to the apostles and are outside of Scripture. How can you derive this and prove it is of divine authority unless you just make the claim that your church says it is that way; therefore it is.

Not so at all. I examined the evidence in the New Testament and wrote the following article on my blog based upon what I found.Take a look. Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

Quote:

The logic make no sense and I don't believe it to be possible to show Jesus taught anything that is not in the written pages of Scripture. Jesus himself said that Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God; where do all Christians go to find what proceeded out of the mouth of God? the Bible?

So then teachings that the apostles offer in their New Testament writings, (and there are a great many) that Our Lord never spoke about are invalid? Surely you didn't mean that! Yet that is the only logical conclusion to arrive at based upon what you have just said. 

Quote:

I cannot force a reasonable and logical deduction on any person; you either get it and see it or you don't. Jesus said the Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word the proceeds from the mouth of God; where does a Christian go to find what proceeds from the mouth of God? The Bible?

Was the New Testament written at that point when Our Lord said that? Isn't He quoting an Old Testament proverb? (Deuteronomy 8:3 to be exact) In all 3 places recorded, there is no New Testament scriptures...as a result you cannot correctly use that to support a premise that involves the New Testament Christian faith.

Quote:

The antithesis of you question is where does it not say we are to use the Bible for all teaching of moral principle and practices? Where does it say we are to obey "traditions" not written and contradict the teaching God has given. traditions are okay if they don't contradict, but when they do then they need to be done away with otherwise god's word becomes perverted and another gospel will emerge..right?

There are no such contradictory Sacred Traditions, and the link to the article on my blog will refute that idea.

Quote:

All of you keep repeating the same fatal fatal flaw. You are putting the authority of your church above that of scripture;

Not so! The New Testament puts the Church above scripture, as has been shown already, while no one has yet given me a single passage of the Bible that tells us that everything that we believe and practice must be found in its pages.

People can argue all day that we Catholics don't understand, but if you don't have a scripture text that specifically says what you say is true, then even by a Sola Scriptura standard one would have to reject it as a false teaching.   

NOTE: See page 21.

Refuting the fundamental modern error of Sola Scriptura.

I was going to add my own refutation to this modern fundamental error and new wind of doctrines of men, but I have discovered that it has already been dealt with by many others and so there is little purpose except to make the information available to you all here.

The following links do that very well. Please enjoy.

Recommended Reading:
Proving Inspiration
Scripture and Tradition
What's Your Authority?
Scriptural Reference Guide
A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura by Dave Armstrong
Catholic Questions: Apologetics Backward by Mary Beth Kremski

What Exactly Do You Mean by Sola Scriptura? by Jimmy Akin
Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura by Steve Ray
Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles by James Akin
Where Does the Authority Lie? by Kenneth J. Howell

According to Scripture by Tim Staples
Sola Scriptura is Unscriptural
The Complex Relationship between Scripture and Tradition by Jimmy Akin
Logic and Protestantism's Shaky Foundations by Brian W. Harrison, O.S.
Going Beyond by Patrick Madrid

Scriptures About Penance

Quote:

Originally Posted by a Non-Catholic pennitent and pennace are 2 entirely different things you'll find no support for pennance...

Here's over 60 references or so where the Bible speaks of sackcloth, most of them are in direct relation to penance, which is a demonstration of sorrow for sin. A physical way in which people have shown their contrition for sin.

Being penitent and penance are inexorably linked in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. This is also what was meant when the people in the Gospels were told to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance. Penitence is the like a second step that follows repentance, and penance is a scriptural aspect of that.

Catholic Confession

In my opinion the passages are clear as in this case.

John 20:21-23 is so important.
"21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

My thinking is that if our Lord had not intended to make the Sacrament of Reconciliation a means of grace unto salvation, then why in the world would He have made this statement and given both this power and command to the presbyters of His church?

James 5:16 & 1st John 1:9 also offer us more insight into this doctrine.

James 5: 14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him. 16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.

1st John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

All these passages expressly speak of confession of sins and so I have to ask, then just how will those outside the Catholic Church explain the obvious link between these passages.

Here is a further outline for study on this sacrament courtesy of John Martignoni and his Bible Christian Society

Quote:

Confession A. Confess your sins to men ~ Leviticus 5:5-6 (“All scripture…”: 2 Tim 3:16) (Law is a shadow: Hebrews 10:1) ~ 1 John 1:9 ~ James 5:16 B. Can men forgive sins? ~ Only God has the power to forgive sins but He exercises this power through men. ~ Mark 2:7 ~ Matthew 9:1-8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid , and the glorified God, who had given such authority to men. - Matthew 9:8

To me, the scriptures are clear, and I can't help but praise and thank God for His wisdom and mercy that (knowing the weaknesses of mankind) equipped His church with the means to help His children overcome our weaknesses and sins.

Tradition? No way!

I love those who come along and make statements like this. As if tradition has no place in Christianity. Which is simply not true.

Here's a really good example. Jude 9: But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."

Find this for me in the Old Testament.

Also, Jude 14: It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,
15: to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Find this for me in the Old Testament.

Remember that this is an apostle writing this and we know that this is inspired by the Holy Spirit. If what he is quoting is from God then where is it in the Old Testament?

If it's from a source other than the Old Testament, then what does the fact that the apostle quoted it into scripture tell you about that source?

Verse 9 is from The Assumption of Moses.
Verses 14 & 15 are from The Book of Enoch.

Both are traditional Jewish writings.

Tradition is bad? Better tell St. Jude.

Ask your average n-C where they can get the names of the two guys who resisted Moses in the Old Testament. St. Paul names them in 2nd Timothy 3:8. "Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith."

Just where exactly did the Jewish scholar St. Paul get those names from to include in his Holy Spirit inspired epistle? They're not named in the canonical books of the OT.

Looks to me like another apostle used Jewish traditional non-canonical sources to teach.
From another Protestant commentator, Matthew Henry:

Quote:

In one sense we must all be ever learning, that is, growing in knowledge, following on to know the Lord, pressing forward; but these were skeptics, giddy and unstable, who were forward to imbibe every new notion, under pretense of advancement in knowledge, but never came to a right understanding of the truth as it is in Jesus. 3. He foretells the certain stop that should be put to their progress (2Ti_3:8, 2Ti_3:9), comparing them to the Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses, and who are here named, Jannes and Jambres; though the names are not to be met with in the story of the Old Testament, yet they are found in some old Jewish writers.

In fact,
Just having a set list of what books are canonical for scripture is a tradition in itself.

The Intercession & Communion of Saints

Have you noticed Hebrews 12:1? And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us:

Now I have never seen the "witnesses" (Fans) of any race that just sat stoically by, have you? How much more so would the saints in heaven intercede for us in our own races knowing of the eternal consequences of it?

Now if the New Testament says that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses as we run our race for the Lord, just what do we think those folks are doing? Ever been to a race? No one sits there stoically, do they?

To me this passage makes it pretty clear that the faithful departed are not only aware of what we do (This of course by the will and power of God!), but they are actively interceding for us the way that race fans do.

I find it even harder to grasp how any soul that has won through so far as heaven or purgatory (knowing the struggles and spiritual warfare that all the "church militant" endures) would not be busily interceding for those of us running our race that has such eternal consequences. That just doesn't sound like any of the faithful believers that I have ever heard of.

These witnesses can see the race.

How much more would the saints in heaven intercede (Oh look! Evidence for the intercession of Saints!) for those of us still running our races, especially since that race has such eternal consequences?

Here's a link to a great Bible study on the Communion of Saints. Here's the basic notes.
Well worth it.

As to the charge of necromancy:
It's not necromancy, you need to understand the Communion of Saints.

If our dead brothers and sisters are not aware of us then why does Hebrews 12:1 say that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses in our race for the Kingdom of God?

Romans 8:38: For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39: nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

To non-Catholics who might disagree:
So you never ask anyone else to pray for you?

When you "got saved", did anyone else pray along with and for you? By your thinking that was wrong since all you needed was to pray for yourself.

Yet what does the Word of God say? I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: (1st Timothy 2:1)

The saints pray in Heaven:
Revelation 5:8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints:

Revelation 8:3 And another angel came, and stood before the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar, which is before the throne of God. 4 And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.

Iconoclasm: Or: Catholics Worship Graven Images NOT

View Poll Results: Allegation of Catholic Idolatry
I agree: Catholics worship Mary, the saints and statues		6	3.85%
That is completely wrong and here's why.		150	96.15%
Voters: 156.

Okay let's try this again...

Welcome!
A graven image according to the context of the 1st commandment is anything that a person would construct in order to give it the worship that is due only to God. Now, that said, it could also include anything that we choose to make more important than God in our lives, such as money, career, or power. The Catechism of the Catholic Church gets into it more here: http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/comm1.html#GRAVEN so you can peruse that at your convenience.

Islam forbids the display of ANY images (It's called Iconoclasm, this forbidding) and the iconoclastic heresies that have arisen in Christianity were the result of Islamic influence in about the 800's. you can find that history here at New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm

Read the graven image part of the first commandment here:
Exodus 20:1-5

"1 And the Lord spoke all these words: 2 I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. 5 Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:"

It is clear that the prohibition is not iconoclastic as you preach, but based upon the intent of the one making and using the image. Since NO CATHOLIC EVER kneels down before any image to worship it we are not idolators at all. We are not stupid enough to confuse a mass of rock, plaster, metal, or any other created thing with the almighty and ever living God of the Universe

New Advent entry on Iconoclasm. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm


From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

IV. "YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE . . ."



2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure...."[66] It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to Israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."[67] He is "the author of beauty."[68]

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.[69]

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images. 2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."[70] The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:
Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.[71]

If the making of images is wrong as the Moslems and these misgiuded iconoclasts say then how do they account for God COMMANDING the making of images to adorn the top of the Ark of the Covenant and the brass serpent that Moses lifted up to save the Israelites that had sinned and which in fact is mentioned in the NT as a type of the lifting up of Christ for our sins? The temple of Solomon is described as having been adorned with all manner of images yet God was pleased to be present there and did not condemn them for it.

The Rapture?

Quote:

Do Catholics believe in "the rapture"?

"Rapture" is often known as an "Ecstasy" in Catholic discussion and refers to visions and such that some very holy saints have experienced. I think one example would be St. Padre Pio and another would be St. Francis of Assisi.

However, if you mean the second coming teaching that a great many (not all) n-Cs believe and the "Left Behind" series of books and movies propagates as fact...no we do not.

That whole teaching has only been around from around 1825 and was concocted by a Church of Ireland preacher named John Nelson Darby. It wasn't even held by many n-Cs until it was included in the notes of C. I. Scofield's reference Bible.

Quote:

The Scofield Reference Bible is a widely circulated annotated study Bible edited and annotated by the American Bible student Cyrus I. Scofield. Published by Oxford University Press and containing the traditional King James Version text, it first appeared in 1909 and was revised by the author in 1917. (From Wikipedia)

Prior to that the teaching was virtually unknown and the only supposedly Catholic to even talk about it was a known heretic from about the 3rd or 4th century (I think).

One of the very best Bible studies on this is offered on a FREE MP3 download from John Martignoni called The Rapture and the Bible and his study notes are here.
It is very much worth your time. If someone is trying to tell you you should believe this, then you might want to download that and then burn them a CD and give it to them. Be sure to listen to it yourself first of course...

Simple answer: No, Catholics do not believe in the rapture because (in spite of all the hype to the contrary) it is not actually taught in the Bible, and it was never believed by the early church...or the rest of the church during it's 2,000 year history.

That would make it a new wind of doctrine and a teaching of men.
Neither is something that Christians are supposed to get into.

Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary's Assumption

Do you believe in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary? Poll Results:
Yes: The Church teaches it, and it makes sense		243	92.75%
No, No way, if it's not spelled out in the bible then...		9	3.44%
Not sure: Let's talk about this.		10	3.82%

To me, the Assumption is easy to believe in. If you check the OT you see that it happened back then too. Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were all taken up by God because of who they were in His plan and their faithfulness to Him and though the NT gives us nothing to go on on this event, there are non-canonical early church writings that do suggest that our Lord took the Blessed Virgin as well. This makes perfect sense to me for several reasons.

1. Mary was Jesus mother and He surely loves her just as any of us love our own and would do everything He can to display that love.

2. Jesus would no doubt protect his mother from the terrible persecutions that followed. You will notice that there is no record of Mary's death or where she went after the day of Pentecost, though we do know that she went home to live with St. John after Our Lord's death right? We know that St. John was the last of the apostles to die and that at one point he was miraculously saved by God when being boiled in oil for his faith...yet he never mentions Mary in his letters but there's just no way that he wouldn't have known her fate...that just doesn't make any sense.

I think that the NT is so silent about the Blessed Virgin because they all agreed to protect her. Can you imagine the PR blitz that would've occurred if the Jews or Romans could have found and tortured and killed the mother of this Jesus? Whew!

3. Since God did some really amazing things with the early church, like snatching St. Stephen away to Azotus after he baptized the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts, it seems logical to me that God did some amazing things for the woman who said yes to bearing His only Son. My friends, Mary is probably the 2nd most unique soul in all of history, behind Jesus Himself. No one else was ever called "Full of grace" like that, and I believe that that "fullness of grace" meant she was way more than what a lot of folks think she was. No...she's not God! But I think she had to be about THE holiest person imaginable. Can ya imagine living every day of your life with the real live son of the living God as your kid? WOW! Now THAT's "walkin' with Jesus!" :D

So...the Assumption is really pretty easy for me and that is why.

(I cite no scripture because the pertinent passages should be fairly easy for anyone to find if interested.)

There are extrabiblical and non-canonical , but traditional sources about this belief.
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it all:

THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION

Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

Link

History is not all in the Bible...not even close. Nor is mathematics, science, or all literature! No; God might not let us know in the canon... but there is a great deal of stuff that He didn't see fit to include in the canon. Is there a miraculous principle of God doing things like this? Of course there is! The Holy Spirit snatched Philip away to Azotus after he baptized the eunuch...is that the only time that happened? No one can say...not even preachers and teachers. Are there stories of such things happening after the NT was closed? Yep. Lots of them...or does your particular version of Christianity disbelieve in miracles? If so I'd say that is really a shame.

I think that the whole fallacy of what you try to tell us is summed up in the closing line of the statement:

Quote:

Always go back to the Bible for your answers.

That is a drastic oversimplification of Christianity and it simply defies all God-given good sense and logic since history tells us a very great many things about what the early church believed and why things developed the way they did.

I have a problem with those who always say that Mary could not have been assumed into heaven when there are so many things that God has done in the NT (Acts in particular) that are precedent setting. There are a lot of things that God has done that are beyond my simple comprehension, yet that does not make me doubt the things that He did for her. I mean if people are willing to believe in tongues and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, then why not this as well? The fact that God has assumed OT faithful such as Moses & Elijah makes me wonder why He wouldn't do the same for someone as holy and special as His own grace filled mother. That just seems like a serious case of doubt to me.

A non Catholic friend said:

Quote:

I've been thinking about this, & doing a little research (& a lot of toiling with my brain!!) I finally came up with what I had been trying to remember. In Matthew 16:28, Jesus says:"There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom"(KJV)...OK, this is explained away by a lot of people, but this--plus the reference in Revelation--It seems to me that He is saying that there is somebody--a real actual human person-- that is known to/in the company of the apostles, who is not going to die, but be taken to Heaven without dying. And, as someone has all ready pointed out, the person with the empty tomb--in fact, the missing tomb--is Mary. So combine that with the fact that this is not something that just occurred to someone one morning--It has been believed throughout history, I find that it is a pretty sure thing that, yes, Mary was assumed into Heaven. Besides, why not??

That just blew me away! That is entirely possible, and as with so many things that I have discovered from the Scriptures it makes serious sense. I can think of quite a few reasons for Mary's assumption...and very few counters. It really doesn't hurt us either way though.

The fact that there are extra canonical sources that tell these things makes it all the more clear. There is ample precedent in scripture and when a thinking person considers all this one can see that it follows logic and the sense of the Word of God. It therefore does not surprise me that the Church proclaims it infallibly.

God is perfect and His works are the source of all wisdom and truth, therefore they are also logical. If there is error...it will be in our capacity to understand, not His works or will.

My contention is that this is still within the character that God has revealed to us in His word and the Assumption is not inconsistent with that nature since God did the same thing with OT people who were not His mother.

Here's the link to Munificentissimus Deus so everyone can read it for themselves.
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Since you bring up this document, I decided to have a look at it for myself, and found this:

"21. Thus St. John Damascene, an outstanding herald of this traditional truth, spoke out with powerful eloquence when he compared the bodily Assumption of the loving Mother of God with her other prerogatives and privileges. "It was fitting that she, who had kept her virginity intact in childbirth, should keep her own body free from all corruption even after death. It was fitting that she, who had carried the Creator as a child at her breast, should dwell in the divine tabernacles. It was fitting that the spouse, whom the Father had taken to himself, should live in the divine mansions. It was fitting that she, who had seen her Son upon the cross and who had thereby received into her heart the sword of sorrow which she had escaped in the act of giving birth to him, should look upon him as he sits with the Father. It was fitting that God's Mother should possess what belongs to her Son, and that she should be honored by every creature as the Mother and as the handmaid of God."[17]

22. These words of St. John Damascene agree perfectly with what others have taught on this same subject. Statements no less clear and accurate are to be found in sermons delivered by Fathers of an earlier time or of the same period, particularly on the occasion of this feast. And so, to cite some other examples, St. Germanus of Constantinople considered the fact that the body of Mary, the virgin Mother of God, was incorrupt and had been taken up into heaven to be in keeping, not only with her divine motherhood, but also with the special holiness of her virginal body. "You are she who, as it is written, appears in beauty, and your virginal body is all holy, all chaste, entirely the dwelling place of God, so that it is henceforth completely exempt from dissolution into dust. Though still human, it is changed into the heavenly life of incorruptibility, truly living and glorious, undamaged and sharing in perfect life."[18] And another very ancient writer asserts: "As the most glorious Mother of Christ, our Savior and God and the giver of life and immortality, has been endowed with life by him, she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb and has taken her up to himself in a way known only to him."[19]"

Baptism~ Necessary or Not?

Many things that n-C churches tell me are not "core" beliefs I find to be Biblically stated otherwise.

Baptism just for an example. Many of the modern post-reformation step children have relegated this to some sort peripheral nicety that we "should" do but it's not necessary for one's salvation. Yet I find an awful lot of New Testament scripture that indicates otherwise.

Examples:

Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Mark 16:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.
16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

Acts 2:38: And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him."
40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation."
41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Romans 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

1st Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

There are others, but I just want to get a scriptural basis for this discussion laid.

Being Catholic I offer statements from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Quote:

537 Through Baptism the Christian is sacramentally assimilated to Jesus, who in his own baptism anticipates his death and resurrection. The Christian must enter into this mystery of humble self-abasement and repentance, go down into the water with Jesus in order to rise with him, be reborn of water and the Spirit so as to become the Father's beloved son in the Son and "walk in newness of life":

Quote:

Let us be buried with Christ by Baptism to rise with him; let us go down with him to be raised with him; and let us rise with him to be glorified with him. Everything that happened to Christ lets us know that, after the bath of water, the Holy Spirit swoops down upon us from high heaven and that, adopted by the Father's voice, we become sons of God.

And,

Quote:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

Is Baptism a "core teaching" and neccesary for salvation?

Quote:

Matthew 28:19: Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

Why would Our Lord command us to make disciples and baptize them and teach them to observe he commanded us if it wasn't necessary?

Quote:

Mark 16:15: And he said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16: He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned

He who believes and is baptized...

Quote:

Acts 2:38: And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him." 40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." 41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Verse 38 plainly says that they must repent "and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins". Verse 39 then extends it to all future believers. Verse 41 shows that the crowd responded in obedience, so apparently they took that baptism very seriously...as required. The apostles certainly did.

Remember also,

Quote:

Acts 22:16: And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.'

Quote:

Romans 6:3: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4: We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5: For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

This in no way indicates a symbolism, but is an expression of a spiritual reality. Whatever happened to "God says it, I believe it, That settles it"?

Quote:

Ephesians 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Why include it here among the essentials of salvation?

Quote:

1st Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Peter, the speaker in the Acts 2 passage above, outright says that baptism saves you...

If one takes the Bible literally I have to continue to wonder how this sacrament can be so marginalized.
Blackie

Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory

Thanks to StillSmallVoice and Yaacov for their help with this.

There is ample evidence that the Bible implicitly teaches a Purgatory.

Begin with Matthew 12:32, which says, "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." Does this not imply that some sins can be forgiven in the age to come? Now think this through...There is no sin to forgive in heaven, right? Sin is not forgiven in hell because it's too late and permanent. So...Implicit "purgatory"

1st Corinthians 3:15 which says, "If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." Again this cannot refer to heaven or hell for the same reasons as above. This is essentially the definition of Purgatory.

1st Peter 3:18-20 which says, "Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit, 19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison: 20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water."

and 1st Peter 4:6 which says, "For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: that they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh; but may live according to God, in the Spirit" Note that it was a prison for disobedient spirits and yet they were saved when Jesus preached to them.

Where is that prison? We are not told in scripture, yet this does indeed indicate that there are other "places" besides just Heaven and Hell, does it not? Believing that there is only Heaven and Hell is in fact, not scriptural.

2nd Maccabees 12:44-46 which says, "44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) 45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. "
The same reasons apply here as to the first passages I gave you...

Note also that St. Paul says that the early church believed this in 1st Corinthians 15:29 which says, "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them? " He does not condemn this practice though it seems to have fallen out of practice...

The Jews also believe this and still do today (as if the passage from 2nd Maccabees doesn't clearly show this). I offer info from my good friend Stillsmallvoice who is an Orthodox Jew who lives in Israel:

Quote:

"Hi all! Our prayer, the Mourner's Kaddish, is for the benefit of the soul of the deceased & is believed to ease the spiritual status of the deceased's soul as it goes through whatever trials & tribulations it may be subject to. Yes, we do believe in something akin to the Roman Catholic notion of Purgatory & thus saying the Mourner's Kaddish would be similar to the Roman Catholic idea of praying for the souls in Purgatory. Look at http://www.ou.org/yerushalayim/kadish.htm#Meaning . The text there is the (5 clause) Mourner’s Kaddish in Hebrew, transliterated English & English (you can also listen to it in RealAudio). As I understand it, a soul that has sinned in this world has to pay for its actions/inactions in the next world. We do not automatically & necessarily divide souls into the entirely righteous who will therefore enjoy enternal bliss and the entirely evil who will therefore suffer eternal damnation. The degrees in between are infinite & we believe that God rewards/punishes each soul according to its good/not good actions. As I said, the recitation of the Kaddish prayer is believed to benefit the soul of the deceased as it goes through whatever trials and tribulations it has to endure in the next world. In addition to the aforementioned Kaddish prayer (which is usually said by a son for a departed parent for 11 months after the day of burial, but which can also be said for 30 days for a spouse, child or sibling, particularly if none of these have children to say the Kaddish; the Kaddish is also recited on the anniversary of the burial), there are the Yizkor (literally: "He will remember") and E-l Maleh Rahamim (literally: "God Full of Mercy") prayers (see http://www.ou.org/yerushalayim/yizkor/) which are recited 4 times a year on Yom Kippur, the last day of Passover, Shavuot and Shemini Atzeret (see http://www.jewfaq.org/toc.htm for links to all of these holydays). I submit the following excerpt (from http://www.jewfaq.org/death.htm#Kaddish): In addition to the Kaddish. it is believed that the recitation of the Yizkor and E-l Maleh Rahamim prayers are beneficial to the soul of the departed. On the anniversary of the burial, it is common to study some chapter of the Talmud or the Tanakh (what we call what Christians call the "Old Testament"), read a selection of Psalms, give to charity, etc. in honor/memory of the departed. This is also believed to be beneficial."

I had already discovered this in talking to a devout Orthodox Jewish buddy of mine and Stillsmallvoice was kind enough to help out with all this info as well.

In spite of allegations to the contrary, the concept of Purgatory is indeed quite scriptural.
Blackie