Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition

*

I received another email from a "a friend" who wishes to remain anonymous:

an intersting link concerning Roman Catholicism, the Bible,

and Tradition.

http://www.raptureready.us/catholicism.htm

a friend

Yes, it is an intersting link, particularly the first section of the article which "a friend" wants me to read: "Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition." It's a much more fair and reasonable treatment of the subject than what was sent to me before.)

The gist of the writer's view is well stated in these two paragraphs:

The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way.

Though the Catholic Church officially states that Sacred Tradition should not and does not contradict Scripture, Protestants see much of the teaching from this Sacred Tradition as doing just that. It isn't enough for the Catholic to say that their church is the true church, that they have the apostolic tradition, that they hold the keys to the truth, and that they have revealed doctrines consistent with biblical revelation. Likewise, it isn't enough for a Protestant to pass judgment upon Catholic doctrines simply because they are Catholic and are derived via Sacred Tradition. [Emphasis mine.]

Most Protestants, if they are honest, will admit to holding to some tradition. Why else would they observe Sunday as their day of community worship? There is no explicit statement in Scripture to do so. Neither does the Bible clearly state the Trinititarian dogmas (i.e., one God in three Persons, each of whom is fully God--with Jesus being one Person but having two natures, human and divine). The majority of Protestantism, however, still believes them.

Why?

Because while the Trinity doctrine, for example, is not clearly spelled out in Scripture, the doctrine does not contradict it. There's no room for God to be anything else once you cancel out all the heretical views.

• He can't be two or three Gods, because Scripture, Tradition, and good philosophy say there can only be one.
• God can't be the Father alone, because the Son and the Holy Spirit are also called "God."
• God, in His essence, can't have length and width, because such physical dimensions presuppose a physical creation. Since He created all things seen and unseen, He cannot have bodily composition -- for He IS the Composer.

Anti-Trinitarians frequently say the doctrine is confused and contradictory. But they're wrong. If it was said that there were three Gods in one God, that would be a contradiction. But the Trinity teaches that there is ONE God Being (that which always existed, is omnicient, omnipresent, etc.). This state of Being -- that which eternally IS -- is shared by three who have relationship with each other. To borrow a phrase, you could say that God is "One What and Three Whos." That's how Jesus, while on earth, could pray to His Father. Both are Creator God, but there is a subject-object distinction here -- a relationship. The same goes for the Holy Spirit. They are all one in Being, but three in Persons that relate to one another.

The truth is, any other explanation contradicts Scripture and sound reasoning.

But guess what? This widely accepted, fundamental Christian teaching is plain, old-fashioned Tradition, with a capital "T" -- not to be confused with minor little-"t" traditions, such as praying with one's fingers interlaced, observing certain fast days, or crossing oneself. While belief in the Trinity is not derived from explicit declarative statements in the Bible (as if the Bible were written as an exhaustive theological treatise in topical format), it does not contradict Scripture. The consistent Tradition of the Church fills in the cracks. (Incidentally, the Bible itself is the product of Sacred Tradition.)

We see that the problem arises from people saying that the Church's Sacred Tradition opposes Scripture when in fact it does not. This is the same problem faced by the Church in the days of Acts 15 during the circumcision controversy. Some of the Christian believers were saying, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses [synonymous with the law of God, or Word of God]" (verse 5). Yet we all agree that the apostles' decision did not contradict Scripture, and that the decision was binding on all believers everywhere.

Another thought: Even in my own religious background, we observed the Lord's Supper by eating bread and drinking wine and washing each other's feet. With an incorrect understanding but with the best of intentions, we emphasized that not one jot or tittle would ever pass from the Law (Matt. 5:17); yet, compared to the Passover of the Old Testament, our service was on the wrong day, held at the wrong place, did not involve the killing of a literal lamb, etc. One could argue that Jesus never said we should stop observing the Passover laws when He instituted the Lord's Supper. Scripture never says that our bread-and-wine service is to replace the Passover observance. Can't we see that the Bible, while inspired and infallible, was not written as a comprehensive Handbook for the Complete Christian? We can't artificially divorce Scripture and Tradition.

The same Spirit that moved in Jerusalem during the first Church Council also moved in the Church throughout history -- to our time now. The early Church's understanding of Scripture and Tradition continues to serve as a model for us today.

_____________
* The Bible pictured above is identical to the one I use, minus the tabbed index. It's a Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, published by Sceptre Press.

Dear Anonymous Friend

A friend wrote me this email:

Darren  please read dear catholic friend at the like below.

I hope it helps

you.  a friend



http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/dear_catholi



c_friend_john_rice.htm





------------------------------------------------------------

This email was sent through the free email service at

http://www.anonymous.to/

Sign up for your free account today!

The link goes to an online book called "Dear Catholic Friend," by Dr. John R. Rice, a self-professed fundamentalist Baptist. Interested in what my friend sent, I read it in one sitting.

I won't offer a full review of the why-you-shouldn't-be-Catholic book here (although it's tempting to do it one day), but for now I will offer just a few thoughts.

In so many words, Dr. Rice begins by saying that if you don't agree with his main views of what true Christianity is, then you don't have God's Spirit:

If in the heart you know Christ as Saviour, and if God's Spirit dwells in you, then God's Spirit will bear witness to you of the truth. And if there is no such witness, then I will conclude, of course, that you are in spiritual darkness. For we are told, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (I Cor. 2:14). [Emphasis mine.]

He emphasizes that the reader doesn't have to agree with him in every detail, but only "the truth as it is in the Word of God, simple and plain, on major matters." I presume that, in his own authority, he decides what are the simple, plain, and major matters. So already we're led to follow his own rules.

Dr. Rice continues later:

You pretend to be for the Bible, to accept its authority. You even claim that you accept the authority of the church on the authority of the Bible. Then you must accept what Jesus said on the matter or accept His brand as a hypocrite on certain matters.

Again, the implication is that if we don't accept Dr. Rice's interpretation of "what Jesus said on the matter," then we're hypocrites. It is noble-sounding to say we should "accept what Jesus said" (who would argue against that?), but what if I think Dr. Rice is misunderstanding Jesus' words, "which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:16)?

Citizens of our country dispute the meaning of important sections of the clearly written Constitution, and it was written much more recently than any book of the Bible. It was even originally composed in English, and we have the original manuscript!

How can anyone claim that the essential teachings of Scripture are so plain to any honest seeker when so many honest seekers offer so many contradictory teachings?

The all-important, agreed-upon question in this matter is this: What is your authority? Basically there are two possible answers for the Christian:

1. I am my own interpretive authority. With the Spirit's guidance, I interpret (fallibly) the books that the Church in history has preserved and collated--the Bible. I will accept no one else's exposition of the Bible unless it agrees with my own interpretation (i.e., the explanation of its meaning), lest I be deceived. If I am wrong, the Spirit will correct me.
   
2. I believe in the divinely established teaching authority of the Church, whose teachings uphold and complement those certain books for which she claims divine inspiration and infallibility--the Bible. Her teachings are safeguarded and preserved by the Spirit, and are thus binding. This follows the pattern recorded in the Bible itself.

I'm not going to get involved in the sola Scriptura ("Bible alone") argument tonight, but I will refer the reader to a well-written, concise article by Catholic Answers on this subject entitled "Scripture and Tradition."

The most authoritative official document of the Catholic Church on divine revelation is entitled, simply, "Divine Revelation," or "Dei Verbum." You can read it here. It, especially, is well worth the read if you are to understand the Church's view of Scripture.

Dr. Rice may not realize the inherent practical difficulties of his Bible-alone stance, but he ought to know that his accusation of hypocrisy can just as easily be turned against him when he has to reason around (i.e., "receiveth not") all the "plain" Catholic-sounding verses of Scripture.

The Double-Minded Man

There have been times when I prayed variously for strength against temptation, for renewed love for God, for unshakable commitment to a spiritual discipline--any number of things--but I was fooling myself.

No, it was not so much "fooling" myself as it was lying to myself, and to God. These are the stupidest of all lies, because God is never fooled about my true intentions, and neither am I when I submit to an honest examination of conscience.

I reread the epistle of James the other night and could see myself in it. This passage is found in the first chapter:

If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does. (James 1:5-8)

The lesson I drew from this is not that, in order to humbly come to the Lord in prayer, I must first have perfect, rock-solid faith. Such faith is a worthy goal, but it's not a realistic expectation for every stage of our spiritual development. If it were, spiritual "development" would have no meaning; we would already be fully developed.

No, what we need to do is open our hearts fully--truthfully--to God. We should peel back the layers of distraction and deceit to uncover our true intentions.

The double-minded man is not the same as the man who prayed,

I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief! (Mark 9:24)

The difference between the two men is a matter of the will.

The first man is dishonest. He's seeking God's intervention while feigning a desire to please him. He's really saying, "Lord, help me to stop my abusive drinking habit. May your Spirit guide me in my thoughts, and strengthen me against the temptation to -- oops! Hold on. My whiskey bottle just tipped over and I don't want it spilling here in the car."

The second man is sincere. His will is set to please God, not to indulge his vices. He says, "Lord, help me to stop my abusive drinking habit. I have poured all my liquor down the drain, I've disassociated myself from my drinking buddies, and I'm quitting my job as a wine taster. I know I can't do it on my own. I am weak, but you are strong. Please give me the strength to live a sober life."

If you pray for wisdom or anything else, but have "secret" plans for foolishness, God cannot grant your request. Until you change your mind about sin, until you truly desire to be God-oriented, you will be double-minded and unstable in all your ways.

Pray that God will root out all your hidden sins, so that you will find "truth in the inner parts" (Psalm 51:6).

What's Wrong With Being "Religious"?

Have you ever heard Christians boast that they're not "religious"? Christianity is not a "religion," they say; it's a "relationship."

If you use "religion" in the sense of meaningless motions, pointless prayers, and wearisome works, then it would be right to distance yourself from religion. Outward ritual, devoid of substance, is futile.

On the other hand, if you define "religion" as rendering to God the respect, adoration, and worship that is due to Him, then you should want to be immersed in it.

Baptismal water, for instance, is one thing into which we should want to be immersed. Outwardly, baptism is a purely physical, mechanical act of ritual. Yet it is commanded (not just recommended) of us. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter didn't say to just get wet; he said,

Repent AND be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).

Baptism is a physical act with spiritual effects.

The same is true of the Eucharist. Jesus said,

I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world (John 6:51).

No doubt about it--the Lord's Supper is imperative to the Christian life. But its rewards are not attained simply by chewing and swallowing.

Paul warned,

For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment (1 Cor. 11:26-31).

We, as Christians, must never separate form from substance. "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead" (James 2:26). We mustn't eat the Body of Christ without doing so "worthily," but also we can't simply be worthy and not eat the Body of Christ. They go together.

Unfortunately, people tend to denigrate the formal "religion" of the Old Testament, yet that is where we first find the commandments to love God with all our heart and to love our neighbor as ourself (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18). The Jewish religion's bad reputation came from the hypocrisy of its professed adherents, not from their careful obedience.

It is right along with all the animal sacrifices, priestly duties, and statutes in the Old Testament that we find the idea of relationship: "I will walk among you and be your God, and you will be my people" (Lev. 26:12).

This relationship continues, and is deepened, for New Testament believers. Christianity is not an overthrow of the religion of the Jews; it is the fulfillment, the perfection, of it. We have Jesus as our ultimate once-for-all sacrifice. We still have specially appointed men who perform the priestly duties of teaching and administering the sacraments. We still have disciplines and holy days to keep us focused on Christ, such as fasting, prayers, convocations, Christmas, Easter, and so on.

As for whether we should consider Christianity a "religion," Scripture sets a precedent:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world (James 1:27).

Relationship should be the basis of our religion, composed of body and spirit to form the whole.

Bush Audio: "Need Some Wood?"

"Need some wood?"--George W. Bush (in second debate with John Kerry).

Click the above quote to hear the MP3 clip. Hilarious . . . in an endearing way.

State-Imposed Morality?

NOTE:
A friend of mine posted a comment in response to my previous post. (Click here to see his point of view and to put this in context.) I'm not yet sure how to reply to a comment without creating a new post--unless I'm supposed to submit a comment of my own under my own post while discussing someone else's comment. I'll figure it out. In the meantime, here are my thoughts.


I sharply criticized what John Kerry had to say about abortion when he said, "I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that."

My friend Terry commented:

While I in [no] way support Senator Kerry for President, I find this a little absolutist. Yes, we need moral fortitude in a President (which Kerry doesn't have.) However, where is the seperation of church and state? What sort of things should be left to individuals and what sort should be left to the lawmakers?

The "wall of separation between Church and State" protected a church from being run by the state, and vice versa. This does not mean that reasonable, traditional, time-honored morals shouldn't be enforced by our government.

We have laws against murder and theft, and even adultery. True, these laws coincide with directly stated laws of God (according to those of us who believe in God), but at the same time they can be deduced by reasoning. They are part of the natural moral law that can be found within all people in all cultures.

This natural law that we possess always needs some polishing, some defining from without. Christians accept divine revelation as the ultimate expession of moral truth. But even the non-religious see the need for civil governments to draw moral boundaries if their society is to prosper--or even survive. It simply isn't enough to say, "Do that which is good" and let everyone run amuck.

It is vital to understand this concept: Religious doctrine can define morals for believers, but the codified teachings themselves are not the source or substance of morality. In other words, you could say there's a separation of Church and Morals. There's a definite distinction. Otherwise, you wouldn't have so many different religions upholding so many of the same morals.

This distinction is important because it shows that a society can legislate certain morals for the common good without enforcing a particular religion, or even an express belief in a timeless Creator at all.

There are sincere agnostics who abhor cruelty and murder. They fiercely defend the family's integrity and its role in society. They believe in freedom. While these are also "Christian teachings," they don't belong in the same category as the doctrine of transubstantiation, the Resurrection, or the Trinity. There is a natural law and a divine law.

Now what about abortion? It can be clearly reasoned and deduced that abortion is the termination of human life. The Bible nowhere says explicitly, "Abortion is a sin," but historic Christianity upholds this moral teaching nonetheless. I'm no expert on world religions, but I strongly suspect that Judaism and Islam teach the same.

Therefore, for a politician to vote his conscience against abortion is not to advocate Islam or Christianity; it is to promote life, and is consistent with the opening sentence of the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

These shared priorities (which are not distinctly "Christian") apply to all of us, no matter what stage of development we find our minds and bodies in--whether we are in the first few days of formation or in the last few days of life.

I say that protecting human life--even if we were to err on the side of caution--trumps the right to "reproductive health care" any day. And that belief doesn't arise only from my religious convictions, but also from my reasonable sense of morality instilled in me naturally as a human being.

One would expect John Kerry, a professed "Catholic," to feel the same when it comes to abortion.

What I Don't Like About "Christmas"

I grew up without Christmas. It wasn't until maybe four years ago when I officially celebrated my first Christmas, because until that time I viewed its observance as a vain "tradition of men" that arose from ancient Babylonian paganism.

I actually detested the decor, sights, and sounds of Christmas festivities, the kind that many others make special trips to see and hear. Out of conscience, I even refused to help set up a Christmas tree at the restaurant I worked for after high school. I wasn't going to participate in "the ways of the heathen."

Perhaps later I'll explain why I changed from seeing Christmas as a day of pagan worship to embracing it as a day worthy of angelic celebration. But there are still a couple of things popularly associated with Christmas that make me uncomfortable.

Santa Claus
There was never a day when I believed in the Santa Claus of folklore. I credit my parents for not fooling me into believing in a Santa, the Easter Bunny, or even the tooth fairy. Since my earliest memories, I've always understood the concept of fictional characters. Parents don't lead their children to believe that Batman or Daffy Duck are real-life characters; why, then, make an exception with Santa Claus, who is supposed to be associated with a religion--no, THE religion--of truth?

I have no problem with the idea of Santa himself (I'm not going to pounce on him with a flying sleeper-hold headlock next time I see him at the mall), but I'm not comfortable with those who would have a make-believe character be the main attraction of a festival central to the Christian faith.

The Spirit of "Gift-Getting"
God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Jesus was born to give His life for us. This greatest Gift, this self-sacrificing love and concern for others, can be imitated (to an infinitely smaller degree) by our giving gifts to others at Christmastime. But when the practice of gift-giving is turned upside down, it becomes gift-getting. And the quality and quantity of gifts received become the criteria for how one answers the question, "So how was your Christmas?"

Prepare Now
Christmas is over two months away. But, believe it or not, now is the time to begin preparing for it--that is, if you want don't want this year's Christmas to be an unfulfilling and even unpleasant experience.

1. Stash some cash. Don't be foolish and go into debt just to give greedy credit-card companies a Christmas bonus. Save now and spend only what you have stored up for gifts. Don't make material goods the focus of the festivity, but make reasonable efforts to garnish the season with thoughtful gifts and decorations.
   
2. Make plans to avoid too many plans. If it's to be a merry Christmas, there's no sense in overextending yourself to the point of misery in order to make yourself and everyone else "happy." Learn to say no when too many demands are requested of your Christmastime schedule. Sit back and enjoy the entire season of Advent to the fullest.
3. Be reconciled to God. Most of us should know from experience that Christmas, or any other important Christian celebration, just isn't complete without a right relationship with our Maker. We all fall into patterns of sin. Take some quiet time to evaluate yourself and seek out all indicators of pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth. Historically, these are called the "capital" sins because they engender most all other sins. You may be surprised, upon careful self-examination, how far we let ourselves slip spiritually. Once you identify your sins, confess them and trust in God's forgiveness to overshadow you, and in His grace to transform you. Only then can you reap the full benefits of this most joyous of all Christian celebrations. One more thought: Why not try something novel and actually attend church on Christmas? It's the best way to stay focused on the meaning of the day.
   

I hope you're looking forward to Advent as I am. Just don't look for me at Wal-Mart on the morning after Thanksgiving. That's one of the things I don't like about Christmas.

How to Write Award-Winning Poetry

I've studied published poems that have earned their writers prestige and even scholarships. Never have I "understood" poetry, but I know what it takes to be a successful poet. You, too, can craft an award-winning poem if you follow these seven simple guidelines:

1. Never complete a sentence.
2. Forget ever punctuating with a period.
   
3. Don't worry about anything rhyming. If you insist on a rhyme, be sure to make it only a close match, but certainly never a perfect rhyme.
4. Iambic pentameter is no good either.
   
5. Avoid logical, sequential thoughts. Keep it loose.
6. Heavy on the adjectives.
7. Conceal the poem's meaning so every reader can come away with his own novel interpretation.

To help you further, I will now write a potentially publishable poem of my own for your careful study.

Dubya
Dubya
Big, old, white house--four years;
Tax cuts, Osama, no child left behind
The world hears you
Honor, dignity, no cigars allowed
Justice, freedom, liberty
Cruelty, bondage, oppression
Kerry and his "global test"
But we need no permission
George, never let 'em heckle ya,
because you're our favorite Dubya
Dubya

Attention generous grant-givers: You may leave your contact information in the comments section. I will consider allowing you to reprint my poem for a handsome fee.