From: ajpg1322@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Angelo J. Paguia)
Subject: 2nd reply(long) to "..Christians out there?"
Summary: 2nd reply(long) to "..Christians out there?"
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 12:28:14 GMT
Keywords: 2nd reply to "..Christians out there?"

In article <Byx183.L9p@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, deguzman@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael R. DeGuzman) writes:
> 
> Hi all.  Ang pangalan ko ay Michael.  Gusto ko lang malaman kung
> mayroon bang manga Christiano sa Pilipinas.  I grew up as a Roman
> Catholic but now that I have come to age I follow the Bible. The Word
> of God.  There are some disagreements I see between the Bible and Catholism
> First of all I want to make clear that the Bible is THE WORD OF GOD and everything in it is right.  Well only the original greek text is error free, but 
> this is the closest.
> 	In the Bible it states that Mary was used by God to bring His son
> 	in Human flesh.  But why do catholics worship Mary?  Isn't this idolitry	Anybody can and will be used by God, That's why we're all here,
> 	I or you can be used the same sense as God used Mary.  The Bible
> 	states that "You should only worship Him."
> 
> 	The Bible does not state the presence of purgatory. So why is there 
> 	purgatory in Catholism?  History revealed that the Church of long 
> 	ago needed to raise money so they said that if you give more money
> 	the souls of you and your relatives would get out of purgatory
> 	Can somebody tell me if this is right or wrong?
> 
> 	Also everybody who has accepted the gift of eternal life is a saint.
> 	Man or woman it doesn't matter.
> 
> 	That's all for now.  But let me take a moment to declare my intentions.
> 	The sole purpose of this letter is to see the difference between 
> 	Christianity and Catholism.  I am Christian.  It only meaning that I hav	e a relationship with Christ.  (Christianity means Christ in one).
> 	So this is not a religion but a relationship.  I would like to know 
> 	the difference and why one is correct or not.  I am a strong believer
> 	In the Bible and I try to follow what it says.  I am not pointing 
> 	fingers either.  I just want to find out for myself.
> 
> 
> 	I really appreciate you taking the tim e to read this letter
> 
> 
> 	Salamat po,
> 
> 	Mike
>

     Not to try to kick a dead horse, I am writing one more time on this
previous post to tie up some loose ends that were not obvious to me
when I put up my previous response.

When I asked Mike de Guzman in my first letter, "Who told you that
the Bible is the Word of God ?", I did not intend to put into doubt
that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. There is no question about
that. The important point to realize is that, if you found a book
in the middle of the desert and realized that it was 2000 years old,
who is to know that it carries the Word of God ?

It is often overlooked by non-Catholics and not mentioned by most
non-Catholic religious books that the Bible survived to this day and
that we all know that it is the Word of God because the Catholic
Church took charge of the propagation of the Bible through 2000 years.
It is interesting to think that the very church that introduced the 
Bible to the modern world is now being accused of not following it.
This accusation has been used by many biblical literalists to take
followers away from the Church. This is sheer demagoguery.

As early as 382 A.D., Pope Damasus I declared to the Church what parts
of Scripture the Catholic church considered inspired and those that
were not. The collection of inspired Bible books is what is referred
to as canonical. This is the very same list of canonical text that
appears in the King James protestant Bible and present day Bibles,
except for some parts in the Old Testament. 

It is important to note that Pope Damasus I was talking about the 
Greek version (Greek New Testament + Septuagint) at that time. 
St. Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, called the Vulgate, in the 
4th century. It was the only version until the 16th century since the 
original Greek text of the New Testament was completely lost. 

The Vulgate was also the text that was first printed by Gutenberg on 
the first press around 1490. In the 16th century, the King James version 
was created for the Protestant Reformation. The Douay-Rheims version was 
the Catholic church's response to the English translation very soon 
after. Only since the Dead Sea scrolls have there been new additions 
and new translations.

It is interesting to ponder if the collected writings, teachings,
documents, knowledge, and traditions of the Catholic church would have
become part of the Bible had not Pope Damasus I "closed" it. These are
what are collectively called the Tradition of the church. Together with
the Pope and the bishops, these are called the Magisterium of the church.

This brings me to the second question that I posed. "Where in the Bible
do you find that the Bible ALONE is sufficient to bring you knowledge
of Christ ?" (Not quite in those words)

The Catholic church considers both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition
as necessary to understand Christ and his teachings, of course, with
the given faith and the Holy Spirit. 

What Mike de Guzman talks of as following the Bible (ALONE, without 
Tradition) is what was referred to by Martin Luther, when he started the 
Protestant Revolt, as SOLA SCRIPTORI - Scriptures alone. This is one of 
the two foundations of the Protestant Revolt. SOLA FIDEI - Faith alone
saves a man - is the other one (This is what I suspect Mike was thinking
of when he wrote "Also everybody who has accepted the gift of eternal 
life is a saint." See Heb 13:16, for example).

Non-catholics normally refer to the following to prove Sola Scriptori:
a. Matt 5:17 (...not the smallest letter of the law...shall be done away 
with until it all comes true.) really refers to the Old Testament(the law), 
which was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and says nothing of Scriptures alone; 
b. 2 Tim 3:15 (All Scripture is inspired of God...) which says the Bible 
is authoritative but says nothing of its sufficiency, and
c. Matt 15:1-20 (sample: This means that for the sake of your tradition you
have nullified God's word) which condemns _corrupt_ tradition and not
_all_ tradition.

However, most of the Epistles (Apostle's letters) and the Acts constantly 
tell the different churches to also treasure what they have been taught 
in person and warn against teachings from outside of these. Some passages:
a. 2 Thes 2:15-17 (Hold fast to the traditions you received from us,
either by our word or by letter),
b. 2 Thes 3:6 (We command you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ, to avoid any brother who wanders from the straight path and does
not follow the tradition you received from us.),
c. 2 Tim 1:14 (Take as a model of sound teaching what you have heard me
say, in faith and love in Christ Jesus. Guard the rich deposit of faith
with the help of the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.),
d. 2 Tim 2:2 (The things which you have heard from me through many
witnesses you must hand on to trustworthy men who will be able to teach
others),
e. 2 Tim 3:14 (You, for your part, must remain faithful to what you have 
learned and believed, because you know who your teachers were.)
f. Heb 13:9 (Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching).

From these, it is obvious that there must be a continuation of the
teachings handed on to the disciples, not divination by one person, nor
by one church. Note how the Acts and the Epistles are about keeping the
many churches along the same line, the same tradition, under one umbrella.
Indeed, this umbrella is _the_ one Church, called the pillar and bulwark
of truth (1 Tim 3:15), _not_ the Bible.

The Church has been given the Bible and Tradition to understand it with.
However, Tradition is not static but dynamic, constantly being added to.
The doctrines that saints and clergy, many of whom have studied the 
Bible and meditated on it for 40-50 years full time unhindered by
extraclerical careers, stay in this Tradition and very extremely rarely
get changed (the only one example I know is Galileo's case). But the
addition and most especially the evolution of doctrine is very active.

The doctrine of Purgatory was based on a closer reading of the Bible
in 2 Maccabees 12:41-45 (not available in the Protestant Bibles) where
Judas Maccabeus offered sacrifices for the sins of the dead which would
have been useless if he didn't believe in a halfway place for souls.
Also, see 1 Cor 3:13,15 and Mt 12:32 (...sins against the Holy Spirit
will not be forgiven EITHER in this world or in the world to come) where
forgiveness is mentioned in this world and in the world to come (if
there was something to forgive, that couldn't be heaven, right ?)

This doctrine was first advanced in 1274, then confirmed 200 years later,
then again in the 16th century where trafficking in indulgences in
favor of those who could pay for it was severely reprimanded, and in
the second Vatican council (1963-1966). This is 800 years of doctrinal
agreement, thousands of clergy and billions of believers together.
I'd like to see anybody counter THAT accumulation of faith with unbelief.

Doctrine, therefore, evolves and grows with growth in faith. This
is required as Scriptures says, "Let us, then, go beyond the initial
teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, not laying the foundation 
all over again"(Heb 6:1-8). Hence, to pick up the Bible and interpret
directly without building on the foundations built by 2000 years of
Church understanding is contrary to the Bible. Hence, Tradition exists.

Scripture defines faith as " confident assurance concerning what we hope 
for, and conviction about things we do not see" (Heb 11:1). Not believing 
in what we do not read about in the Bible is doubting the power of God 
and His action through the ages. It is almost like worshipping the Bible 
and going against the first commandment.

The history of the Church has been very turbulent and interesting.
Without a doubt, there have been plenty of dishonorable clerical actions
(e.g., pedophilia). But the Church as a whole has never strayed in its
task of "feeding the flock" with "the Word that comes from the mouth of
God", viewed in retrospect. Indeed, it has proved true the promise of
Christ to Peter that "the jaws of death nor the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it." (Matt 16:18ff), that we refer to as Infallibility
and supported by "Simon,...I have prayed for you that your faith may 
never fail. You, in turn, must strengthen your brothers."(Lk 22:32)

In this strengthening and teaching, the Church has always met opponents
who have always claimed Scriptural support against Church teachings and
the Church has always answered with definitive Scriptural support. This
has been going on for 2000 years and is not a new trend. But it was my
brother that made me realize that anyone can prove _anything_ with the
Bible. Only faith and Tradition can show correctness. After all, in
the Tempting in the Desert, didn't the Devil have a battle of wits with
Jesus using Scriptural lines ?

The Church has taught about the Sacraments from its understanding of 
Scripture and Tradition, like Confession (Forgive men's sins. Those sins
you forgive on earth will be forgiven in heaven, those sins you hold
bound will be held bound, John 20:23), and doctrines like that of
Transubstantiation ("For my flesh is real food and my blood real drink...
This is the bread that came down from heaven...It is the spirit that 
gives life; the flesh is useless. The words I spoke to you are spirit
and life. Yet among you there are some who do not believe...many of his
disciples broke away...", John 6:53-66).

These things I just mentioned are points of contention that a lot of 
Biblical literalists point to as non-Scripture based. 

The leaders of the Protestant Revolt, in framing their 15 articles of 
belief, outvoted and intimidated Martin Luther politically for him to
reject the theory of Transubstantiation, not agreeing on the meaning of
the words in John 6:53-66 above. They wrote this rejection in such a 
way as to go against the Roman Catholic position and Tradition, starting
afresh from the Bible - though they accepted doctrinal development on
other things later on (The History and Character of Calvinism by John T. 
McNeill,2nd ed, Oxford University Press, 1954, p 50). As you can see,
Bible interpretation is not very straightforward at all.

Did these leaders, believers in Sola Scriptori and Sola Fidei, repeat
the events in John 6:53-66 and doom themselves ? I pray that they didn't.
And, seeing how much faith they had in their convictions, I keep the 
faith, for their own sake and mine, that there is a Purgatory.

May God grant you abundant blessings in the coming holidays and always.

Angelo

P.S. In the 1st post, I quoted the Rabbinical Council of Jamnia to
have occurred in 1000 A.D. I had one zero too many, it was 100 A.D. Sorry.















Newsgroups: soc.culture.filipino