Why Do You Use So Much Scripture?


Constantine: First of all, don’t you find it ironic that you rely so heavily on Scripture to make your case while at the same time decrying Sola Scriptura? I don’t find one instance in this article where you cite a pope, a cardinal or even a council and yet you seem to rely solely on Scripture to make your case. BFHU: I use so much Scripture on purpose. I am trying to explain the Catholic Faith to Protestants and Catholics who have questions based on questions or accusations raised by their Protestant friends. Since Protestants will accept nothing except Scripture I try to explain the Catholic Faith using the best Scripture support there is. Quotes from Popes, councils or Cardinals would fall on deaf Protestant ears. The Catholic Faith has very much surprising support in scripture which Protestant do not see because they are taught to interpret them differently, they just don’t ever notice them or they just ignore them. Constantine:Secondly, can you please show us where, in any official, dogmatic Roman Catholic document, the official “infallbile” interpretation for any of the bible verses you cite? No? I didn’t think so. So you are really just doing what you rail against Protestants for doing. That is, you are just using your own “private interpretation” and holding it out as though it were a Magisterial teaching. So you really are no different than a Protestant. BFHU: There is no official infallible commentary on the scriptures. But there is all kinds of writings all the way back to the first centuries in which the scriptures were interpreted and commented upon. These are not at all remotely similar to Protestant interpretations. Plus, if you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will find thousands of scripture used in conjunction with doctrine and teachings. I did not just make this up. These interpretations are as old as the Church. Constantine:My dear bfhu, that is not even remotely true. St. Cyprian called a council to purposefully contradict the bishop of Rome; St. Augustine and the bishops of North Africa purposefully contradicted the bishop of Rome; the Inquisitors of the 16th century contradicted the bishop of Rome and the entire Gallican Church refused to allow papal bulls to be circulated until the local bishops approved them – and this up until 1800! So the history of Christianity is that nobody – until this most recent century – thought the bishop of Rome was a final authority. I am happy to provide you with numerous sources if you’d like. BFHU: Rebellion and heresy does not constitute proof that the bishop of Rome is not the final authority. There have always been, are today, and always will be rebels and heretics. Martin Luther was one. Calvin was another. But for the faithful, when voices of men are contradicting each other we are always safe to go with the Bishop of Rome when he teaches on faith and moral to the whole church. This has been the case for 2000 years.

Advertisements

16 Responses

  1. I just love it when Catholics call Calvin a heretic.
    That would mean America in its self is a Blasphemy,
    Freedom of Religion (Separation between Church and State) that is why NO Catholic Priest in America signed or was for Declaration of Independence. Those Ideas of are Fore –Fathers came from Calvin’s Institutes and are form of Government style came from the Presbyterians. BTW John Witherspoon (Presbyterian Pastor) was the only Clergy to sign the Declaration of Independence. Most Other Puritans (Baptist) were afraid of the King of England, Baptist) and still believed in Organized Religion and a state religion
    It were those dam Rebels those heretic Calvinist that shatter the Idea that the State (Whether Rome or a Monarchy) could rule over a mans soul. That God Himself is the Only Sovereign that the State is never sovereign and since the Spirit of God lives within us, the Citterns of America are their for Sovereign and can have a self ruling Government in which that’s what makes the government Sovereign BY its Citterns (Not a institution) This was and still is blasphemy to the Roman Catholic Church. So my question is if you who are a Catholic in America your Job is to tear at this Foundational idea right? Like Bill O’ Reilly? Right?

  2. Well as Blessed Cardinal Newman said,

    “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”

    and its opposite is true in this case, Robert.

    To be shallow in history is to be able to remain Protestant.

    Calvin did not subscribe to freedom of religion at all. In fact people in Geneva Switzerland who rebelled against Calvinism were persecuted.

    Background Material on Servetus Affair of 1553

    1. Founding of USA and Its Constitution

    Calvin revealed himself at Geneva, especially in the Servetus Affair, as less than an advocate of free speech and the freedom of religion. Yet, modern Calvinists claim our USA revolution was a Calvinist Revolution. Calvinists also claim the Christians who led our Revolution were Calvinists. Are these claims true? No

    5. Calvin’s Subversion of Geneva in 1555 and Responsibility For Later Killing of Heretics

    Calvin set the precedent of killing heretics in Geneva in 1553. This was then used in 1555 to kill political opponents, and gain hegemony over Geneva. This tactic was repeated again in 1581 to subvert the young Dutch Republic which guaranteed religious liberty in its Constitution. Calvinists usurped the laws of the Netherlands, and then created a de facto state church out of the Dutch Reformed Church. They then persecuted and killed Christians who dissented from their views. They did this in the Council of Dort in 1619, and then again with the Boston Martyrs in 1659-1661. This tendency to kill anyone who was suspected of being different also led to the Salem Witch Trials, again perpetrated by Calvinist Puritans trying to imitate the Geneva Republic. For a detailed 27 page analysis, see this webpage hosted here..

    Calvin’s’ 1555 Subversion of Geneva’s Democracy Repeated In The Dutch Republic of 1579
    Precedent in Servetus’ Case Unleashes Calvinists to Kill Political Opponents On Specious Heresy/Blasphemy Charges

    For More information click –>Calvin

    I think this is even a Protestant site.

    • On Point 5 , The Roman catholics had done the same thing since the conception of the Pegan CHurch. in Rome Self _rightouesness ID say.
      They most likley killed Roman Catholics. Wich Roman Catholics had done for over a 1000 years in Europe.

      (No affiliation with me or this website.)
      Your Link to that website is unverifed.
      Everyone has bais. Not to disclose your bais is unbiblical. Even Jesus disclose His bais.
      Miguel Servetus , was a Hratic he was publicy Preaching aginst the Trinity, and Conterdicted Moses words serval times.
      Servetus called the trinity a Cerberus.
      http://knol.google.com/k/servetus-calvin#

      the question is was Calvin wrong in these actions?
      my personal opion Yes
      I hoped Calvin asked for forgiveness?
      But thier were a lot of popes and leaders of ROman Catholic Church that did the same thing. Didnt Jesus say something to this affect that ” You accuse those of stealing and you steal” speaking to the Jewish leadership.?

      Why was a reformed Spanish theologian in Dutchland anyways ?
      DUH?
      The Catholic Church was propley hunting him down too.
      Being that Spain was loyal to Rome.

      Only Certian Ideas Came from Calvin ist wasnt a Calvin reveloution, freedom of speech and freedom of Religion were proggesive Ides, Presbys and Espcipalions(anglicain) proggesive. Wich followed certain Institutional tentants from Calvin (basicly the first 4 chapters of the Book of Order)
      My point being that all these Ideas are counter to Rome. Period

      you bring up Miguel Servetus wouldnt the Roman catholic have put him to death also. Your point is mute.

      Well as Blessed Cardinal Newman said,

      “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”

      and its opposite is true in this case, Robert

      Why make a personal attack.
      You dont even know me , your first respones always on this site BFHU is personal attack resopsones , putting the other person down and at the defensive , so you then can justify a mute point. It really show your charactor to be a lot like Calvins , instead of a Deabater like Luther, It was the Romans that wanted to put Luther to death , Just as Calvin put a reformed Spanish theologian to Death.
      You want to put to death those who disagree with you.
      AND THAT is in your Scarded Tradition.

      • Please forgive me for attacking you personally. I did not mean to but i can certainly see why you took it that way. But are you aware that you have attacked me personally also?

  3. I Havent attack you
    Ive questioned your Ideas thats it
    and compared your Ideas with your tradition
    and made a Charator assment base on what you posted.

    I havnt called you shallow , through a quote

    and its opposite is true in this case, Robert.
    Thats an attack

    • Well, this is what i was talking about:

      1) your first respones always on this site BFHU is personal attack responses ,

      ALWAYS??? Can you prove this?

      2) It really show your charactor to be a lot like Calvins , instead of a Deabater like Luther,

      3) You want to put to death those who disagree with you.

      Wow! Just Wow! You call these questions of my ideas? You call these points of debate or discussion?

  4. Hello bfhu,

    I’m sorry for the delay, but I’ve just now found your website here.

    You write,

    There is no official infallible commentary on the scriptures.

    That’s what I thought. So you are just doing what every Protestant does and relying on your own private interpretation. Therefore, I would ask you to acknowledge that fact and stop making your inaccurate accusations against us.

    Are you calling St. Augustine a “rebel and a heretic”? Augustine certainly did oppose the bishop of Rome on several occasions but that did not make him a heretic! In fact, if you continue to call him one, you are in violation of your own sect, which call him a “Doctor” of the church. The fact is, as I said earlier, there is no primacy in Rome and there has never been.

    I’ll come back in a minute to set the record straight on Calvin and the Servetus matter.

    Peace.

    • Constantine,
      I am not using my own interpretation of Scriptures. Despite the fact that we don’t have an official infallible commentary we do have the writings of the early Christians who were taught by some of the apostles themselves. What I write here is not my own but the teaching of the apostles as handed on to other “faithful men able to teach.” That has been one of my favorite things about being Catholic. I don’t have to read the Bible and figure it out for myself. My own ego is not bound up in my interpretation of Scripture like that of a Protestant Bible student’s. It is so freeing to trust learned Christians and His apostles who have studied Scripture for 2000 years.

      I did not say Augustine was a rebel and heretic. I did not say that disagreement with the pope and bishops equals heresy. It does not. St. Jerome also disagreed with many things. But once the pope and bishops made an official decree on a doctrinal subject these humble and faithful men submitted to the Vicar of Christ. Unlike Luther and Calvin, etc.

      After a teaching on faith and/or morals is proclaimed officially THEN to disagree and teach others becomes heresy. Private disagreement should become a matter of prayer and request for understanding to align with Christ’s Church. We have many heretics in the Church today who vote for and/ or advocate for abortion, gay marriage, contraception, priestesses etc.

  5. Bfhu,

    Your information on Calvin is completely misguided. I recommend that you pick up some of the newer biographies so that you might be better informed. The ones by Dr. Godfrey and Dr. Selderhuis are readily available and both are quite good – although each has a different approach.

    First of all, to say, “Calvin set the precedent of killing heretics in Geneva in 1553” is a complete fabrication. At least 6 years earlier (1547), Charles V, the Roman Catholic emperor had set up the Chambre ardente to adjudicate heretics – which meant non-Catholics – and thousands of Protestants were brutally murdered. In point of historical fact, my dear bfhu, it was this body that sentenced Servetus to death. The French Inquisition of the Roman Catholic church decided that Servetus was “to be burned alive, at a slow fire, till his body he reduced to a cinder…” It was only by escaping the Catholics that he made his way to Geneva.

    Secondly, to say “This was then used in 1555 to kill political opponents, and gain hegemony over Geneva” is another lie. Calvin did not even become a citizen of Geneva until 1559 so claiming he could direct a civil government is simply wishful thinking.

    But far, far worse during this same time period was the massacre of more than 100,000 Protestants during the infamous St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. A massacre applauded and officially celebrated by the pope. How despicable.

    I pray bfhu, that God will enlighten your mind so that you will stop perpetrating such grievous and injurious errors. God is not glorified by error.

    Peace.

    • I did not say that “Calvin set the precedent of killing heretics” , that was a quote from another source. But, I think what was meant was that he set the Protestant precedent of killing heretics.

      As for your accusations against the Church some may be true but some sound like anti-Catholic hate. If the pope celebrated St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre then he must have been an evil pope. No one has ever declared that Catholics are without sin. No one has ever declared that the Pope’s are without sin. So dredging up sin in the Catholic Church DOES NOT CONVINCE THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS EVIL. It just states what is true of Catholics always and everywhere. They are all sinners even our Saints. Many are not examples of the teaching of Christ and His Church but examples of human weakness and failure. Our Saints are, however examples, of heroic virtue in Christian living. We still have many of saints and sinners today. Human failure DOES NOT NULLIFY the teachings of Christianity.

      But guilt by association has been hurled at Jesus and His Church for 2000 years. However, it does not work.

      Mark 2:15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi’s house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

      17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

    • Bfhu is not miguided in her rather generous treatment of Jean Calvin. Furthermore, if you think that Calvin was a great man, you are the one in need of enlightenment. Calvin was a heretic, blasphemer, and a murderer. This is historical fact.

      Calvin rejected Rome’s legitimacy to interpret the Scriptures, and he also rejected the idea that the ordinary, common man could interpret the Bible for himself. He unilaterally appointed himself as the only legitimate interpreter of the Scriptures.

      We all know about Servetus, who was only one of Calvin’s many victims. Consider the case of Jerome Bolsec. In 1551, Bolsec, a convert to Protestantism, heard Calvin preach about predestination. Now Bolsec believed in Sola Scriptura and in Sola Fide. However, he recognized Calvin’s teachings for what they are – heresy and blasphemy.

      Bolsec challenged Calvin, and the result was that he was arrested and put in prison. Calvin simply couldn’t envision a world in which another human being could interpret the Scriptures and counter his beliefs. Calvin, in typical fashion, actually wrote that he wished Bolsec was “rotting in a ditch” (letter to Madame de Cany, 1552).

      What about Pierre Ameaux. In 1546 he was forced to crawl through Geneva to the door of the bishop to beg forgiveness for daring to publically challenge Calvin? Yes, this definitely sounds like the word of a great man of God!

      Calvin never supported private interpretation of Scripture by laymen. As we know, he also rejected Rome’s claim to interpret the Bible. That leaves one person: him. Disagreeing with him brought prison, public humiliation, and sometimes death.

      I’m not writing this to justify the Roman Catholic Church and the Inquistion. I am not Roman Catholic. However, I advise that you do not hold up Jean Calvin as a great man (or suggest that his critics are in need of enlightenment). He was an arrogant, cruel, and bitter tyrant, and I have no reservations whatsoever in callling him a heretic and a murderer.

  6. Demtrios,

    I’m sorry but you are completely wrong and ill informed. Calvin was none of the things you attribute to him (i.e. heretic, blasphemer, murderer.) Surely you know that the killing of Servetus was not a murder, don’t you? As I mentioned earlier, it was the Roman Catholic Church in France that sentenced him to death! In fact, in 1553 when Servetus was executed, Calvin was not even a citizen of Geneva and therefore had no political standing with the government there. So he could not have done the things you wrongly attribute to him. That’s just the plain historical fact.

    And, of course, you are wrong when you write, “He unilaterally appointed himself as the only legitimate interpreter of the Scriptures.” What Calvin actually taught was that “…God alone can properly bear witness to his own words, so these words will not obtain full credit in the hearts of men, until they are sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit.” (Institutes, I.7.4) So Calvin never put himself in the place of God.

    And you are only partially right when you say that, “Bolsec challenged Calvin, and the result was that he was arrested and put in prison.” He was arrested by the magistrate because he had publicly spoken against the accepted doctrine of the city. In other words, he was an insurrectionist and the city imprisoned him for it – not Calvin.

    And your defense of poor Mssr. Amaeux is charming. You do realize of course, the M. Amaeux violated large numbers of laws. And that his wife tried to seduce Calvin! We can look at history to see what happened to people who behaved thusly in the Papal States – they were boiled in oil! Is that what you prefer, Demtrios, the Catholic prescription for dissent?

    And Calvin was a great man. God raised him up to purify His church in Southern Europe at the same time he raised Martin Luther in the North. Calvin is also the single greatest influence on the creation of the most influential Christian nation in history – the United States of America.

    Peace.

  7. This is where Catholics are misinformed and miss the concerns that Protestants have with the Catholic faith, it’s not the scripture, but the lack of practicing scripture. Rosaries and statues, and praying through Mary to go before God? You can’t call upon Mary to go before the Father, you can only go through Yeshua, not a priest, not Mary and not a statue? That’s what Protestants have against the Catholics. Not the Scripture, and a priest cannot, ever absolve you of your sins, never ever never will they be allowed too! Only through the son before the Father will he forgive us period…
    God’s Speed….

  8. Jeff,
    This is my site and I am an ex-Protestant. I was also mildly anti-Catholic. Before you judge Catholic belief and practice you really need to find out about them from Catholics not ex-Catholics or other anti-Catholics. Would you recommend people read books by Christopher Hitchens in order to get a good idea about Christianity?

    You are quite wrong about confession. Jesus Himself instituted the sacrament:

    John 20: 21 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.

    If you read the early Church Fathers from the first three centuries AD, before the Bible was canonized and before Constantine supposedly corrupted the Church, you will find out what Christians, closest to Jesus and the Apostles in time, believed. Are you brave enough to do that? Do you think you will find Protestant or Catholic beliefs?

    I would recommend Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1 because it contains the most often used quotes from the Fathers. So, there is no hidden agenda. You can find lots of other books on the early Church Fathers on –> Amazon.

    Regarding the Rosary, statues and Prayer to the Saints please read my posts:

    Rosary:Repetitious Prayer and the Rosary

    Statues:Idol Worship, Idol Worship, Statues in Churches, and the 2nd Commandment

    Prayers to the Saints: Why Do Catholics Pray to Mary?

    You might also find my conversion story of interest.–>My Conversion to the Catholic Church

    If you are fair-minded, you really need to find out what Catholics believe FROM Catholics and not Protestants.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: