Scripture and Church practice

[Guest Slowriver]

Arguments demonstrating the invalidity of Sola scriptura are abundant and compelling. I don't idolize the Bible but since the Church teaches that the Bible is the Word of God I don't understand why everytime a practice of the Church is questioned because it clearly contradicts Bible passages, the Church always finding ways to defend its positions despite what the Bible says is sometimes intellectually not very honest.  Just one example: the word "saint" in the New Testament refers to all believers. I read an article by a great catholic apologetist answering the questionon why for catholics, saints seem to be only canonized persons. he agreed that the word in the Paul writings refered to all believers but he had to go  into great lenghts to justify the Curch practice of canonization which has no biublical backing and didn't bother to give reference to which tradition has led to a change of meaning of the word "saint". Such examples sometimes give me the impression that either the Bible should be read by no one so we would have no problems in accepting the Church's teaching or it should not be called the Word of God. It is very disheartening when you are discussing with a protestant and that you are forced to resort to the argument that it is the Church that produced the Bible or that sola scriptura doesn't hold just to end the debate.

Granted, Protestants can't hold unified views accross all their denominations, but at the same time Catholics would have made things easier if they simply said that there is no such thing as "the Word of God" or if the Church just removed from the Bible all passages that contradict Tradition a the time it decided on the canon of the New Testament. I sound a bit extreme so I apologize to anybody who would feel offended.

[MarysLittleFlower]

The Church practices actually don't contradict the Bible, - it only may seem so based on an interpretation of the Bible. That is why we interpret Scripture with the Church

for example even the Church uses the word saints in different ways. There are the canonized Saints, but also everyone in Heaven can be called a saint - with a small s. The Saints are those that have become known but there are many unknown ones. There is nothing wrong with having canonised Saints as examples.

We are not sola Scriptura so we have practice's that don't contradict the Bible but not every practice is directly mentioned in the Bible. For example God let the Church make the Code of Canon Law. God works through Tradition too. Regarding St Paul's use of the word saints, perhaps he was referring to us being set apart for God through our Baptism.. Set apart for God is the meaning of holy. Saint comes from the Latin word for holy.

If the Bible doesn't directly mention canonisation doesn't mean the Church can't have it, because public Revelation (such as Scripture) deals with doctrine, not practices. The Church makes its practices based on doctrine in Scripture and Tradition which is public Revelation. In the early Church, the martyrs were instantly canonised and the people could ask them for prayers. Then other Saints were added. Since the early Church practiced praying to Saints, it makes sense to have a list of them - those who are known to be in Heaven. The other saints in Heaven we will know later.

Some Protestants object to an early Church practice because it contradicts their interpretation of Scripture (which is very different than contradicting Scripture), but I'd trust the early Church (and Church of any time, since its always His Body) much more than a fallible persons interpretation, including my own. The Church is lead by the Holy Spirit.. We are bound to believe that, and if we believe it, then we would accept its teachings too. It is lead by Christ because it is His Body - which is visible, not invisible. Hope this helps!

Edited August 10, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Gabriela]

Reading between the lines of your question, it seems to me your main dilemma is having to defend Catholic teaching to Protestants. You seem to have to do this often and find it difficult because Church teaching sometimes appears to contradict the Bible.

The real solution to this is to learn more about why the Church teaches what She does. I assure you (as has MLF) that Church teaching and practices in no way contradict the Bible. But this is the 21st century, and so to us—so far removed from the Bible's real historical context and reading it in translation—it is easy to misread the Bible and/or to assume that it implies things it does not. Protestants do not even use the whole Bible, so the problem is that much greater for them (and for you, if you're explaining Catholic teaching to them!).

A good place to start for you in particular would probably be the great apologists (people who study how to defend the Faith). Phatmass has an apologetics section that would be a great site for you to look up some of the questions you're often confronted with. Of course there are also books: Some of the great Catholic apologists of our time include Scott Hahn, Jimmy Atkin, and Patrick Madrid. If you look on Amazon for their books, you'll find plenty to get you "armed" for defending the Church's perfectly-in-harmony-with-the-Bible teaching!  

[dUSt]

Moved to Open Mic because I can't find a question.