The Roman Catholic Church~ Questions

[Grammaton]

---

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites!" I admire those who took extra time to study the Holy Books. But to qualify that one of which is the mere and sole source of salvation is way too much! Who wrote your Holy book by the way? Are these but compilations also? and who decided that it be listed/chronicled in such order?

Nope bro. Holy book or the bible is not the source of salvation, JESUS IS. I dont know if we have the same interpretation of this so called "salvation".

Of course because humans are the only one capable in doing so. I cant imagine if we would trust a document written by non-humans. but the point there is the inspiration of these writers!
Regarding the canonization of the scriptures, i dont have much idea about it yet.

[dartzed]

Ang punto diha is bowing yourself down or praying/asking for anything sa rebulto. wala mana ampoi ang cherubim ug ang bronze serpent. wala nimo masabti ang point sa ana nga commandment. ayaw ibali sa ginoo ang iyang laws sa atua para lang pag justify sa atong (should i say) sayop nga interpretation.

i think you are judging RC the way you see what they are doing.. though most RC members are seen not following the teachings and i do agree most are a bit fanatical na to the point.. but it was never in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church to think that the images or engraved images will be considered as the real God and goes as well as the saints images.. hmmmmmm how do i explain this in laymans term.... ani nlang i have a photo of my late grandpa i'm talking to the picture telling my grandpa what i was doing while i am alive, but that doesn't mean the picture is the one im talking with right but who's in it(dead grandpa who is somewhere else i duno)..

same goes if i wept infront of the picture doesn't mean im crying for the picture but the one who's in it..

Thats my point kay kung moingon ka nga nagfollow gihapon ang RC sa old testament laws then usa ni siya nga imong ma consider nga wala gituman.

like i said not all images are graven bro.. as what the bible is mentioning.. mahimong graven ang usa nga image imo you consider the thing as GOD himself..

[dartzed]

Dili man lang pari muy gitagaan ana na Mission, kita man tanan mu sunod ni Kristo, mao na tawag 'Great Commission'. Ang simbahan Katoliko natukod pagka-Emperor naman ni Constantine I sa Rome, 300-400 years after the death of Jesus.

Before that there were already many Christian churches. In the New Testament in the Bible for example; those books called Romans, Hebrews, Ephesians, Galatians, Thessalonians, Corinthians, etc.. are letters ni Paul to Christian churches in those places. BTW Christians didn't have buildings back then, tago-tago ra to sila sauna tungod sa persecution. When they say Church it means 'people' not buildings.

All you have to do is look for it and read. Don't over analyze and confuse yourselves.

i don't think you understand sa amo gistoryaan, of course apil jud tanan obviously..

[stOnekeeper25]

da nganong nag hikog..

[alfalfa]

Nope bro. Holy book or the bible is not the source of salvation, JESUS IS. I dont know if we have the same interpretation of this so called "salvation".

Of course because humans are the only one capable in doing so. I cant imagine if we would trust a document written by non-humans. but the point there is the inspiration of these writers!
Regarding the canonization of the scriptures, i dont have much idea about it yet.

Thus, taking your point, it would be prudent to specifically quote the teachings and works of Jesus. But Jesus himself didn't write his very Gospel. and how many gospels do we have now? and going back to my previous point, who decided that we would only consider four gospels? how about the other writings about Jesus? are they not "inspired"?

[alfalfa]

akong question ngano misahan man ang patay? naa paday mabuhat sa patay?
ma usab pa ang disisyon sa ginoo kong misahan? hehehe

tubag ni sa akong yaya.

The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition.
Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14, where Christians are actually commanded: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
Sacred Tradition complements our understanding of the Bible and is therefore not some extraneous source of Revelation which contains doctrines that are foreign to it. Quite the contrary: Sacred Tradition serves as the Church’s living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently believed and who to properly understand and interpret the meaning of Biblical passages. In a certain way, it is Sacred Tradition which says to the reader of the Bible "You have been reading a very important book which contains God’s revelation to man. Now let me explain to you how it has always been understood and practiced by believers from the very beginning."

The Catholic Church emphasized that the Scriptures must be read in light of the apostolic Tradition that was handed down through the ages.
As Saint Peter writes in his epistle, Scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation.
It therefore must mean that it is a matter of public interpretation, and that is the interpretation of the Church.
The Church has always encouraged reading the Scriptures.
In fact, the Catholic Church is the one who first translated the Scriptures into the vernacular.
Since the Catholic Church holds that the Bible is not sufficient in itself, it naturally teaches that the Bible needs an interpreter. The reason the Catholic Church so teaches is twofold: first, because Christ established a living Church to teach with His authority. He did not simply give His disciples a Bible, whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may. Second, the Bible itself states that it needs an interpreter.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura overlooks – or at least grossly underemphasizes – the fact that the Church came before the Bible, and not the other way around. It was the Church, in effect, which wrote the Bible under the inspiration of Almighty God: the Israelites as the Old Testament Church (or "pre-Catholics") and the early Catholics as the New Testament Church.
To say that the early Church believed in the notion of "the Bible alone" would be analogous to saying that men and women today could entertain the thought that our civil laws could function without Congress to legislate them, without courts to interpret them and without police to enforce them. All we would need is a sufficient supply of legal volumes in every household so that each citizen could determine for himself how to understand and apply any given law. Such an assertion is absurd, of course, as no one could possibly expect civil laws to function in this manner. The consequence of such a state of affairs would undoubtedly be total anarchy.
Since the Bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates yet another dilemma: How can one know with certainty which books belong in the Bible – specifically, in the New Testament? The unadulterated fact is that one cannot know unless there is an authority outside the Bible which can tell him. Moreover, this authority must, by necessity, be infallible, since the possibility of error in identifying the canon of the Bible would mean that all believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bibles, a situation which would vitiate Sola Scriptura. But if there is such an infallible authority, then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura crumbles.

Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it was none other than the Catholic Church which eventually identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Catholic Church gave its final, definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon a the Council of Trent in 1546 – naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church is able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong in the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on other matters of faith and morals?

Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion’s founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it."

[Grammaton]

i think you are judging RC the way you see what they are doing..

i have no right nga mo judge but my point is ni contradict ang imong claim nga moingon ka ang RC nagsunod sa bibliya.

though most RC members are seen not following the teachings and i do agree most are a bit fanatical na to the point.. but it was never in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church to think that the images or engraved images will be considered as the real God and goes as well as the saints images.. hmmmmmm how do i explain this in laymans term.... ani nlang i have a photo of my late grandpa i'm talking to the picture telling my grandpa what i was doing while i am alive, but that doesn't mean the picture is the one im talking with right but who's in it(dead grandpa who is somewhere else i duno)..

same goes if i wept infront of the picture doesn't mean im crying for the picture but the one who's in it..

mao raman tingali gihapon, basta graven images nya imong ludhan is idolatry.

like i said not all images are graven bro.. as what the bible is mentioning.. mahimong graven ang usa nga image imo you consider the thing as GOD himself..

kung ang point nato is pag-ampo para ngadto sa ginoo, unsa may relevance anang graven images?

[dartzed]

@ Grammaton

i'd like to point this out to you..

Your bible: Hebrews 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.

My bible: Hebrews 10:12 - 12 But this man, offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sits on the right hand of God.

hmmmmmmmmmmm that's the big problem there remember about ako giingon b4 nga translations are not the same?.. well this is where things are mixed up..

offering one sacrifice for sins is so different from having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time..

sa RC bro ang sala nga panulundon ra ang nawala.. kabantay ka walay nakabutang sa imo posts nga asta ang tanan sala sa future ang napapas? but the only thing imo gipakita is kana naay sin of all time nya lahi pa jud tag translation kay naay napuno sa inyo..

How odd is it?..

[Grammaton]

tubag ni sa akong yaya.

The Bible Indicates that In Addition to the Written Word, we are to accept Oral Tradition.
Perhaps the clearest Biblical support for oral tradition can be found in 2 Thessalonians 2:14, where Christians are actually commanded: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."
Sacred Tradition complements our understanding of the Bible and is therefore not some extraneous source of Revelation which contains doctrines that are foreign to it. Quite the contrary: Sacred Tradition serves as the Church’s living memory, reminding her of what the faithful have constantly and consistently believed and who to properly understand and interpret the meaning of Biblical passages. In a certain way, it is Sacred Tradition which says to the reader of the Bible "You have been reading a very important book which contains God’s revelation to man. Now let me explain to you how it has always been understood and practiced by believers from the very beginning."

The Catholic Church emphasized that the Scriptures must be read in light of the apostolic Tradition that was handed down through the ages.
As Saint Peter writes in his epistle, Scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation.
It therefore must mean that it is a matter of public interpretation, and that is the interpretation of the Church.
The Church has always encouraged reading the Scriptures.
In fact, the Catholic Church is the one who first translated the Scriptures into the vernacular.
Since the Catholic Church holds that the Bible is not sufficient in itself, it naturally teaches that the Bible needs an interpreter. The reason the Catholic Church so teaches is twofold: first, because Christ established a living Church to teach with His authority. He did not simply give His disciples a Bible, whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may. Second, the Bible itself states that it needs an interpreter.
The doctrine of Sola Scriptura overlooks – or at least grossly underemphasizes – the fact that the Church came before the Bible, and not the other way around. It was the Church, in effect, which wrote the Bible under the inspiration of Almighty God: the Israelites as the Old Testament Church (or "pre-Catholics") and the early Catholics as the New Testament Church.
To say that the early Church believed in the notion of "the Bible alone" would be analogous to saying that men and women today could entertain the thought that our civil laws could function without Congress to legislate them, without courts to interpret them and without police to enforce them. All we would need is a sufficient supply of legal volumes in every household so that each citizen could determine for himself how to understand and apply any given law. Such an assertion is absurd, of course, as no one could possibly expect civil laws to function in this manner. The consequence of such a state of affairs would undoubtedly be total anarchy.
Since the Bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates yet another dilemma: How can one know with certainty which books belong in the Bible – specifically, in the New Testament? The unadulterated fact is that one cannot know unless there is an authority outside the Bible which can tell him. Moreover, this authority must, by necessity, be infallible, since the possibility of error in identifying the canon of the Bible would mean that all believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bibles, a situation which would vitiate Sola Scriptura. But if there is such an infallible authority, then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura crumbles.

Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it was none other than the Catholic Church which eventually identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Catholic Church gave its final, definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon a the Council of Trent in 1546 – naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4th century. If the Catholic Church is able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong in the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on other matters of faith and morals?

Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion’s founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it."

There is no problem with the traditions as long as it goes inline with the scriptures. not contradicting.

[dartzed]

i have no right nga mo judge but my point is ni contradict ang imong claim nga moingon ka ang RC nagsunod sa bibliya.



mao raman tingali gihapon, basta graven images nya imong ludhan is idolatry.



kung ang point nato is pag-ampo para ngadto sa ginoo, unsa may relevance anang graven images?

kabaw ka unsay gamit sa arc of the covenant bro?..

like i said an image can be called graven images if and only if ang mismong butang gihimo nimo ug ginuo nga maoy muluwas nimo.. according to the bible pwede maghimo ug images but deli nimo himuon ang butang ug ginuo..