Closed What Does the Bible Say About Christmas?

[Gentleman007]

ENCOURAGE BIBLE READING?

According to Pope Leo XIII the Catholic Church “has never failed to take due measures to bring the Scriptures within the reach of her children”. Again we ask, do the facts fit the claim that the CatholicChurch has encouraged and does encourage Bible-reading? If so, how? and to what extent?

At the time when England was under Catholic domination, for anyone to be found guilty of reading the Bible in English meant the forfeiting of “land, cattle, life and goods from his heirs forever”. Many were the followers of Wycliffe, the Lollards, who were imprisoned and even burned at the stake because of having thus read the Bible in their native tongue.

If the Catholic Church really had wanted to encourage Bible-reading would she have kept that sacred volume in the shroud of dead languages? Would Pope Gregory of the eleventh century have publicly thanked God that the Bible was in a dead language if he had wanted the people to read it? And why should it have been necessary for Thomas Stitny, “father of Bohemian prose,” to complain about the efforts of the Catholic Church to keep the Bible from being translated into the Bohemian language if she was interested in having the common people read the Bible? Would Pope Pius VII on June 13, 1816, have stated, “Experience has proved that, owing to the rashness of men, more harm than benefit arises from the Sacred Scriptures when published in the language of the common people”? And would Pope Gregory XVI on May 8, 1844, in his encyclical Inter Praecipuas, have condemned “the publication, distribution, reading and keeping of the Scripture translated into the vernacular”?

The picture of a chained Bible is a familiar one. Catholic apologists tell us that it was chained merely to keep it from being stolen or knocked down on the floor and that such Bibles were “placed open on a table in the churches to be consulted”. But who would be consulting a Bible written in a dead language at a time when the great majority of the people could not even read their native tongue, not to say anything about the dead or classical languages?

The fact is that the only reason the Catholic Church finally did give the people the Bible in their native tongue, as she herself confesses, was to counteract Protestant versions. Says the Catholic Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, page 140, 1913 ed.) on this subject: “It [the Douay Bible] owed its existence to the religious controversies of the sixteenth century. Many Protestant versions had been issued and were used largely by the Reformers for polemical purposes. The rendering of some of the texts showed evident signs of controversial bias, and it became of the first importance for the English Catholics of the day to be furnished with a translation of their own, on the accuracy of which they could depend and to which they could appeal in the course of argument.”

How reluctant the world’s greatest religious organization which “made and preserved the Bible” was to do this may be gathered from the fact that she waited two hundred years after one of her excommunicated doctors of divinity (Wycliffe) had pioneered the task on his own initiative, to give to her people this much needed instrument! The above quotation also effectively silences the claims that the Catholic Church and not the Reformers pioneered the work of giving the people the Bible in their native tongues.

But surely today the Catholic Church encourages Bible-reading. Did not Pope Leo XIII grant ‘an indulgence of 300 days to the faithful for every time they read at least a quarter hour the books of the Sacred Scripture’? True, but how much encouragement to read the Bible that represents non-Catholics do not know. But a Catholic knows that he can gain the like amount of indulgence, 300 days, for just repeating once “Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee”. And that takes only five seconds to repeat! Why spend 15 minutes reading the Bible to gain an indulgence that is yours for just five seconds of praying? Use that fifteen minutes in unscriptural repetitious praying and gain 54,000 days’ indulgence! So it might be argued. But even if the Bible is read, how much benefit can be expected to be gotten from such reading done merely to gain some other benefit and that for a specified time? Where would the mind, one’s thoughts, be?

Indicative of the way the Catholic Church really feels about the Bible is the following excerpt taken from current Catholic Bible tracts: “The Christian is not bound to read the Bible since it is the Church who proposes to us for our belief Divine Revelation as contained in Scriptures and Tradition.”

 

[Gentleman007]

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

If Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible why is it necessary for Catholic publications to tell Catholics, “No, Catholics Are Not Forbidden to Read It” (showing a picture of the Bible) and to state that “some Catholics have the idea that Bible reading is strictly ‘Protestant’”? What more damaging confession could the CatholicChurch make as to her failure to encourage Bible reading than to admit that some of her children think that Bible reading is ‘strictly Protestant’?

During World War II there was complaint in the Catholic press of Britain about the ******* of not being able to procure Catholic Bibles even though Catholic fiction and Protestant Bibles were plentiful. Replying to such complaints one Catholic publisher stated: “If there existed a demand sufficient to justify special effort, we may be sure that effort would be made. It may be of interest to note that, though Catholics show this apathy regarding the Scriptures, in other quarters a new appreciation of the Bible is being manifested.”

Further circumstantial evidence along this line appeared in the book Religious Beliefs of Youth, published in the United States in 1950. This book made a comprehensive analysis of the religious habits of United States youth, and among the statistics it published were those showing that 61.9 per cent of the Catholic youths had not read their Bibles during the past six months, to compare with only 31.2 per cent of the Protestant youths who had not read their Bibles within that time. Obviously, two-thirds of Catholic youth is not impressed by the offer of indulgences for reading the Bible if they do not read it even once in six months.

Nor are such observations as the following, taken from The Holy Bible, The Heritage of Catholic Family Life, likely to make Catholic youth want to do more Bible reading: “Can the six days of which Moses speaks be those long periods described by the geologists? Certainly they are not. Moses knew nothing of modern science; his picture of the universe is quite naïve, not further advanced, in fact, than that of the people among whom he lived three thousand years ago.” Yes, poor Moses! He just did not know any better, according to this Catholicpublication. How much faith in the inspiration of the Bible does such an appraisal of its account of creation indicate? And how much encouragement to read the Bible?

In view of the foregoing what conclusions must we reach? That the Catholic Church did not make the Bible, she has not preserved it, she does not genuinely encourage the reading of it. Her Bible efforts are merely window dressing and propaganda to meet competition. Just as she is content to let her people remain illiterate so long as the states do not try to educate them, so she is willing to let her people be without the Bible so long as there is no danger of their obtaining Bibles from other sources. And just as she has her greatest school systems where secular education is at its best, just so she publishes the Bible in the native tongue if there is a likelihood of her people’s obtaining a Bible from other sources. Compare Spain with the United States. Her current Bible week is a case in point, for she admitted that it was planned to counteract the celebration by non-Catholics of the 500th anniversary of Gutenberg’s Bible.

 

[Pewdy]

TRACT
Peter and the Papacy

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, 17:24-27; Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7).

It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ appeared first to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11) and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Peter the Rock
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as “Rock” (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a “rock” (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, “From now on your name is Asparagus,” people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman “Rock”?


Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called “Rock.” The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah (“bee,” Gen. 35:8), and Rachel (“ewe,” Gen. 29:16), but never “Rock.” In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning “Sons of Thunder,” by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Promises to Peter
When he first saw Simon, “Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’” (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: “And I tell you, you are Peter” (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Isa. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, “Do you love me?” (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love me more than these?” (John 21:15), the word “these” referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

Who is the rock?
Now take a closer look at the key verse: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term “rock.” To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: “You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.” The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase “this rock” must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

Another alternative
The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the cornerstone.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.

Look at the Aramaic
Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas“). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, “and the Rock was Christ” though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from “Rock . . . rock.”

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

 

[Pewdy]

Question:
Was St. Peter really the first pope?
Answer:
Yes, Peter was the first pope. The best sources to testify to that reality are the Bible and the Church Fathers. Here are several Catholic Answers resources to aid you in demonstrating that historical reality: our tracts on “Peter and the Papacy,” “The Origins of Peter as Pope,” and “Peter’s Primacy,” as affirmed by the Church Fathers. See also our booklet Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth.

In addition, examine any reputable secular history of the early Church. Even if the historian doesn’t like the Catholic Church, he’ll affirm the historical reality of the existence of the papacy versus the Protestant belief that the Church was an “invisible reality” of all those who professed belief in Christ.

 

[Pewdy]

Origins of Peter as Pope

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter “rock”: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modified to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.


These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: “You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church.”

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

Tatian the Syrian
“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

The Clementine Homilies
“[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]” (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering” (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

“There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude wí†hdráws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not wí†hdráw from Christ” (ibid., 66[69]:8).

Firmilian
“But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

“[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (ibid., 74[75]:17).

Ephraim the Syrian
“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus
“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Pope Leo I
“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).

Council of Chalcedon
“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

 

[Pewdy]

Catholics and the Bible
THE CATHOLIC EVIDENCE GUILD • 9/1/1997

Catholics are often accused of arguing in a “vicious circle,” proving the Bible by the Church, and the Church by the Bible. We must be careful to avoid this by explaining that we put the Church before the Bible because the Church existed first and wrote and compiled the Bible. The authority of the Bible depends on that of the Church. Then we use the Bible to prove the Church; we use it not as an inspired volume, but merely as a historical document. From the Gospels as historical documents we learn that Christ founded a Church, but the authority of the Gospels as inspired writings rests on the word of the Church.

We can define the Bible as “a collection of writings, which the Church of God has solemnly recognized as inspired” (Catholic Encyclopedia). What is the non-Catholic’s definition? Paul says, indeed: “All Scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16, 17). But he gives no list of Scriptures nor any method for discerning which they are.

The Scriptures themselves assert that they are incomplete and send us to the Church. “Many other signs also did Jesus . . . which are not written.” (John 20:30). “Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest ?” . . . . “How can I, unless some man show me” (Acts 8:30, 31).


It is impossible to get unanimity of impression in different ages and countries. Books appeal to one date and country, not to another: The Epistle of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and several gospels at first thought inspired were rejected by the Church. On the other hand, the Books of Kings, Chronicles, and Ecclesiastes are disputed by modern critics as not containing ” heavenly matter,” yet are accepted by the Church as part of the organic whole—for the Bible is an organic whole, and many parts lose their meaning if severed. Each age and nation and temperament, by their interpretation, would (and in Protestantism do) practically make a different Bible, when, leaving ancient authority, they test each part by their subjective feelings.

No internal evidence could prove inspiration, because inspiration is essentially a supernatural fact. It is objective, not subjective. It is simply that God said this thing in this way. It may not appeal to me personally—parts of it may not be meant especially for me—but God wished to say it for some person or time. Therefore the inspiration can only be known upon some authority sent from God. The only possible competent authority would be either Christ or his apostles or the successors of the apostles—that is to say, Christ’s Church. All Christians appeal in fact to some authority behind the Bible (e.g., Luther claimed to alter the canon of Scripture, and Lutherans accepted this on his authority). Christ nowhere told men to go to a book to learn his doctrine. He himself wrote nothing down. But he did say to Peter: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” (Matt. 16:18); and to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Go ye teaching therefore all nations” (Matt. 28:19). “He that hears you, hears me, he that despises you, despises me, he that despises me despises him that sent me” (Luke 10:16). The apostles went forth and taught according to Christ’s command. They ordained others to succeed them. Much of his teaching they handed down in their tradition only—that divinely protected living memory of the Church. Much they committed to writing and collected together by degrees.

Though collections of sacred writings, varying in extent, existed in the various local Churches of Christendom, the canon or official list of Scripture was only compiled by the Church toward the end of the fourth century—at Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397, whence it was sent to Rome for confirmation in 419. The Bible may be called the notebook of the Church, and she has always claimed to be the guardian, exponent, and interpreter of it. . . .

As then, so today, private judgment leads to wild chaos in interpretation. But further, the rejection of the Bible has come directly from the claim of heretics to make it the sole rule of faith. The Bible is often obscure—a daily rule of faith and action must be clear —hence arose impatience of delays and obscurities.

Two schools came from Protestantism: Believers in an almost wooden theory of verbal inspiration making no allowance for the human instrument (e.g., various translations, slight discrepancies in different accounts of the same scene, texts from the Old Testament quoted with slight verbal inaccuracies in the New Testament); believers in absolutely unchecked freedom of criticism, neglecting the divine inspiration.

The Church insists on both the divine and human: “In interpreting the Bible scientifically, its twofold character must always be kept in view: It is a divine book, in so far as it has God for its author, it is a human book, in so far as it is written by men for men. In its human character the Bible is subject to the same rules of interpretation as profane books but in its Divine character it is given into the custody of the Church to be kept and explained, so that it needs special rules of hermeneutics” (Catholic Encyclopedia 5:696).

The Church maintains absolutely the inspiration of Scripture. The [First] Vatican Council thus defines it: “These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labor, and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and have been transmitted to the Church as such.”

She maintains also the sovereignty of truth in every sphere: “All truth is orthodox.” Truths cannot be contradictory. But time and patience are sometimes needed to bring home their full bearing and mutual harmony. W e must remember that the Church is often asked to accept as truth theories which are only imperfectly worked out or are full of errors. She rightly insists on waiting until the chaff and wheat have been sifted. She will not accept hypotheses as proved facts.

For a Christian face to face with a Bible passage the question “Is it true?” does not arise; God wrote it, and he cannot lie. The question in every instance is only, “What does it mean, what did the biblical author, inspired by, God, wish to convey and teach?” Now to ascertain this the guidance of the Church is essential, and time and patience are often needed.

Leo XIII’s encyclical on Scripture (Providentissimus Deus) tells us that it is not the aim of the inspired writers to teach us science or history: “[The Holy Ghost] who spoke by them did not intend to teach men these things, things in no way profitable to salvation. Hence they described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language or in terms which were commonly used at the time and which, in many instances, are in daily use to this day even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers (as the Angelic Doctor reminds us) ‘went by what visibly appeared’ or put down what God, speaking to men, signified in a way men could understand and were accustomed to.”

It is the office of the Church’s theologians and Scripture students to ascertain how far statements in the Bible apparently scientific are bound up with those sacred truths which the writer is inspired to deliver, and in that sense they are to be understood. Until any question arises we accept these statements in their simple meaning. When a question arises we await the Church’s interpretation. Thus the troubles about the Copernican system struck a severe blow to Protestant dependence on the Bible, but have not affected Catholic belief. Galileo’s condemnation was a mere incident, which had no permanent result on Catholic belief in inspiration, because Catholics had the Church behind the Bible and knew that, whether quickly or slowly, she would give them an interpretation and explanation.

Thus, while outside the Church excessive dependence on the unsupported letter of Scripture has led to such a reaction that people are giving up the Bible altogether, the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, keeps for her children the treasure she originally gave them.

But are her children even allowed access to this treasure? Are Catholics allowed to read the Bible? Let’s look.

Pre-reformation literature is saturated with Bible quotations. Much that is left to us consists either of books of the Bible or breviaries which are almost wholly made up of Scripture. The sermon literature of the Middle Ages was a mosaic of Scripture texts. Preachers used the Bible much more than is customary today in any pulpit. Half an hour’s perusal of the sermons of a Bernard or a Bonaventure shows us that the preachers almost thought in Scripture texts. For those who could not read, the Church provided a knowledge of the Bible by means of mystery plays, illustrated editions of parts or the whole of it in paintings, sculptures, and stained glass windows: The statuary of one great cathedral is known as the “Bible of Amiens.” Of the Bible in pictures, the Synod of Arras (1025) said: “The illiterate contemplated in the lineaments of painting what they, having never learnt to read, could not discern in writing.” To the man of the Middle Ages the Bible was a living reality.

Today, priests are obliged to read Scripture in their Office, or daily prayers, for about an hour and a half every day. The laity are more than encouraged, they are urged to read the Bible. By Pius VI (1778), by Pius VII (1820), they were earnestly exhorted to read it, by Leo XIII a special blessing was given to all who would read the Gospels for at least a quarter of an hour daily. Benedict XV (himself the founder of the Society of St. Jerome for distributing the Gospels in Italian, which sells great numbers every year) sent, by the Cardinal Secretary of State, the following message to the Catholic Truth Society: “It was with no little gladness of heart that the Holy Father learned of the work of the Society and of its diligence in spreading far and wide copies of the Holy Gospels, as well as of the other books of the Holy Scriptures, and in multiplying them so as to reach all men of good will. Most lovingly therefore His Holiness blesses all who have put their hand to this very excellent work; and he earnestly exhorts them to persevere with ardor in so holy an enterprise.” . . .

What has caused the general impression that the Church does not wish her children to read the Bible?

Her claim to guide and teach them in the reading and interpretation of it: Danger is incurred in many ways by putting the Bible, without guidance, into the hands of children or the unlearned. (No one would maintain that the Old Testament in its entirety is suitable for the young even to read; again, some explanation is absolutely necessary for many parts of both Old and New Testaments.)

Her refusal to allow her children to use false and incomplete translations. At one time Bible translations were falsified in the interest of certain heresies. William Tyndale, for example, always substituted the word “congregation” for ” Church” and “ordinance” for “tradition” because of the Catholic connotation attached to these words. He also translated “Little children, keep yourselves from images”; instead of using the more accurate rendering ” idols.”; Again the authorized Anglican version translated 1 Corinthians 11:27 as ” and drink this cup,” so that the Catholic custom of Communion under one kind should seem to be condemned by it. The Revised Version has corrected this, and the text now stands ” or drink this cup.”

The harm done by bad translations and by want of an interpreter may be specially seen if we examine the efforts of various Bible societies and non-Catholic missionaries in the last century. In China, India, and elsewhere, they either altered the Catholic versions or wrote new ones in various dialects before they had acquired real knowledge of the language into which they were translating; these they scattered broadcast, without explanation. Educated natives declared that in many cases the translations were so bad as to make absolute nonsense and in other cases were even b.asphemous. They derived from them nothing but contempt for Christianity. Moreover, the way in which these sacred books were distributed shocked all, especially the Mahommedans, who declared nothing would induce them to give the Koran to anyone unless they were certain it would be treated respectfully. These Bibles were often used as wrappings for drugs and other merchandise, wallpapers, or covers for cartridges (See Marshall’s Christian Missions, vol. 1., chap. 1).

It may, perhaps, be allowed that at some periods and in some countries this caution of the Church has been carried to excess, but in the long run the realization of the existence of difficulties and of the need of an interpreter has preserved the Bible for Catholics when others are losing it.

Next we ask, How should Catholics read the Bible? Ordinary Catholics should be guided by the Church in reading it. Let us begin with the missal. Then, for those who have time, the breviary shows us the Church’s mind from the beautiful way in which the Scriptures, the lives of the saints, and the thoughts of the great Doctors and Fathers are brought together in a living unity. By following the seasons year by year in missal and breviary, we are using one of our most precious Catholic privileges. The meaning of the great feasts becomes more actual to us and illustrates the Bible for us.

We can, of course, read the Bible as literature, as a series of documents of surpassing human interest.

Our chief profit, not for ourselves only, but also in our work for others, will lie in reading it devotionally.

Some must, of course, undertake the work of the revision of texts, higher criticism, etc., but this is the office of experts.

If we are to understand a book, we want to know the aim for which it was written; if to understand a man, we ask what is the leading thought and aim of his life.

Stretching across the mountains and the plains of Israel, dimly visible at times, at times clearly seen, goes that Way which is also the Truth and the Life. And in one simple sentence Christ tells us his divine secret: “Before Abraham was made, I am.” It is this that gives the Bible its amazing unity; it is in his light that we see light, and the Bible becomes alive to us read in that light which is the life of men.

 

[Gentleman007]

Binasa mo ba mabuti mga pinost ko sir?

 

[Gentleman007]

Ang mga turo ng relihiyong inaaniban mo ay wala sa bible taliwas lahat ng yan sa turo ni Jesus at sa pagiging tunay na kristiyano.

 

[Gentleman007]

Gusto mo paba isa-isahin ko pa sayo kung anong mga huwad na turo yon na tinuturo ng katoliko? Baka magulat ka sa Sobrang dami! kaya sana sir maging bukas isip mo sa katotohanan sa bible.

 

[Pewdy]

Ikaw binasa mo? Hahahaha purong kasinungalingan naman mga evidence mo.ts hahahaha hay naku di na ako magrereply wala namang pupuntahan to sarado mo nalang hahaha kapagod din magexplain byeeee

 

[Gentleman007]

Ikaw binasa mo? Hahahaha purong kasinungalingan naman mga evidence mo.ts hahahaha hay naku di na ako magrereply wala namang pupuntahan to sarado mo nalang hahaha kapagod din magexplain byeeee

Tara pag usapan natin saan ang kasinungalingan dun?

 

[treskia]

Saan sa bibliya nabanggit Ang Christmas celebration?

Ito po,

And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another

 

[Norton360]

Lets respect each other's beliefs nalang po, mapa anong relihiyon man. Kung ayaw nyo pong mag celebrate, rerespetuhin namin kayo. Kung gusto nila (namin) mag celebrate, respetuhin nyo dn po kami. Di naman po nakakasakit/nakakasama sa inyo yung celebration namin. Di rin po kami naapektuhan sa paniniwala nyo. Peace on earth nalang po. May alam nga akong pamilya na magkakaiba sila ng relihiyon lahat, pro strong pa rin bond nila kasi they rrspect each others belief. Sana ganun din tayo kasi after all, parehas tayong Pilipino, iisang pamilya lang tayo.

 

[uploader74]

Share ko lang about the thread -
What Does the Bible Say About Christmas?

Simple. When Christ was born, there are NO Christmas tree, NO Rudolph "the red nose reindeer", NO Sta Claus, NO snowman,
and NO snow, since The Lord was NOT born in December 25th.

The Roman Catholic System Adopted this celebration from Pagan.
It's googable.

"Though December 25 is the day Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, the date itself and several of the customs we've come to associate with Christmas actually evolved from pagan traditions celebrating the winter solstice. ... "In ancient Rome there was a feast called Saturnalia that celebrated the solstice.

Thanks