Can you call yourself Catholic even if you haven't read the Bible? Lets say i take the Communion, go to mass every week...

That's the only way you can call yourself catholic

;)

Attached: 23C4F10D-6193-4C97-AAE5-A303A781900C.png (540x397, 380.62K)

Then how was Jesus reading out of the book of Isaiah?

Attached: 485dbb2c9a3fb34e3f8c805915e661055acc7d85f5ba9b92cee038d1b54cf0da.png (265x209, 60.36K)

I hate every false way.

The Jews didn't even have a Bible. The Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed on what even was to be considered Scripture.

Latin was a translation of Greek

>>>/out/

What else do they have to do, point out non-existent facts?

The bible was vernacular for around 7 centuries, and that's only for the West.
It was made illegal thereafter for the exact same reason most baptists don't like non-KJV translations.

Are…are you REALLY this dense?

BOI
Psalm 119:104 King James Version (KJV)

104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.

By the way catholics and orthodox are bigger heretics than most protties

reread the scripture I posted . There is no exception given for "false way[s]". You can still "hate every false way" and bridleth your tongue, not rendering evil for evil, and put away all evil speaking.

Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware: and reprove one that hath understanding, and he will understand knowledge. Prov. 19:25

Who is more of a scorner of God's word? I wouldn't want to be a partaker in some of the things papists have done. Like usurping the authority of God, burning scripture, etc.

Sounds like pharisees talk no offense

Prov. 19:25 doesn't say "scorner of God's word" though. Also, "smite" does not mean "insult" or "curse". Further, you can reprove without resorting to cursing or insults.

That's fine, but that is still no justification for allowing "corrupt communication [to] proceed out of your mouth." 1 Peter says we should "be pitiful, [and] be courteous."

In a very limited sense, it has every right to, since, despite all their sins, the Pharisees actually did have an authority to teach the faith, which Jesus explicitly affirmed:

>The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Arnt catholics *muh tradition* like Pharisees? And didn't Pharisees think thet could only interpret the faith like Catholics did before the Bible got published to all

Rebuking isn't the same as corrupt communication or filthy conversation. I hope that's clear. And another thing, you can't defend the wicked and hope to pass along unnoticed.

Proverbs 24:24
He that saith unto the wicked, Thou are righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:

It is courteous to the victims to spare not. Any who is wise will receive knowledge. As it says, the wise will receive knowledge when instructed.

Many people lived a pious life without access to the bible. Don't even knowing that they would be called catholic (that is just an adjetive of the church). For instance, paleochristians and early ermits. To me, bible is secondary in a sense. I don't care about the secular history of Israel. The wars aganist Judah. Or the ceremonial laws. I also don't care much about early creation myths, even if divinely inspired. To me, the epistles and all the NT are much more important.

Attached: 1499509321262.png (250x273, 20.63K)

Rebuking also isn't the same as cursing or insulting.

You don't have to call someone you disagree with righteous. You also don't have to insult them.

to spare not what? Spare not them from proper instruction. Still no justification for insults.

The "Tradition" that is often talked about in Catholicism is somewhat unfortunately named, because when you hear the name you think it's about what one usually associates with "traditions": old practices, rituals, etc. that are passed down throughout generations. There is nothing wrong with them as long as they are used to glorify God - it'd be absurd to claim that they are wrong simply because they are traditions (Want to wear a traditional ethnic dress? You can't, that's a tradition. Want to celebrate Christmas with your family? You can't, that's a tradition. Want to use this traditional old prayer that is very well written and so helps you direct your mind to God? You can't, that's a tradition. Etc.). But these are not what the Church means by "Tradition".

"Tradition" in the wide sense refers to everything that God once would reveal and finished revealing when the Apostles died". Now there are no new dogmas that God is going to reveal, nothing to add to the Christian doctrine. That part of history has already ended. We can only pass down'' this revealed faith, hence "tradition", from Latin "tradere" - "to deliver, hand over". (In the strict sense, it refers to the subset of this that isn't included in the Bible - but this is still wildly different from what people think about when they speak of "traditions".)

Now that you know what Tradition is, you can see that there can't and couldn't be any wrong with it (in the wide sense, it's equivalent to "truths that God revealed to be believed as Christian doctrine" - obviously it can't be wrong, and indeed, if you think that the Bible's doctrines were revealed by God for Christians to believe, you already believe in something that fits under the definition of Tradition in the wide sense; if this includes truths outside the Bible, then obviously the same applies, them being a subset of this tradition in the wide sense; even if they don't exist, then you still must accept that if they hypothetically existed, there would be nothing wrong with them). So the question becomes not whether Tradition is wrong or whether you can apply it - if we use the Catholic meaning of the word, every Christian, including the Sola Scripturs ones, every Christian necessarily believes it - but whether your doctrines really are Tradition, or just man's inventions purporting to be part of the Tradition.

See the above post. Even if they weren't the only ones, they, per Christ's words, could authoritatively teach the faith (they "sit in the Moses' seat", so "do as they teach").

Depends what you mean by this. If you mean that we believe the Catholic Church to be able to authoritatively teach the faith, including whether this or that teaching of someone really is of the faith and belongs to it, or is just a false teaching, then we never stopped believing this.

Attached: 487b375ea94995a6355b19ed5e8088dd.jpg (941x1200, 251.91K)

This is what papists actually believe

Better to be divided by truth than united in falsehood

In my experience it's not a common belief outside imageboards, and it's heretical by Catholic standards anyway.

It's by no means unorthodox in Roman Catholicism to hang the bible upon ecclesiastical authority

This is not substantially different from the pharisees' position. They claimed Moses taught things from God outside of scripture and passed them down through the elders. This is what Jesus pointed to as the root of their errors when He said "Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me". When we give divine authority to an oral tradition we have union with the pharisees. Tradition only has authority insofar as it is the faith once for all delivered to the saints in scripture passed down from generation to generation. In all other cases, it may be safely rejected, and can never be considered divine revelation.
I find that this is true of the Roman Catholic position in name only, but that in the practical reality it is new revelation. When these traditions cannot be traced back beyond a certain point, it is excused on the grounds it is now tradition, and therefore must be from God, or the magisterium has dogmatized it, and therefore it must be from God. Thus, though it is claimed from the apostles, the actual time when it is first 'revelized' is well after them. When divine authority is granted to tradition, this cannot be avoided, since doing so would be to question that any of that which is tradition is divine by its own virtue.
As shown above, the problem is they lead one to hold to traditions of men. When the problem of Jesus' condemnation is raised, I have seen Catholics defend themselves on the grounds their traditions are divine and not human. To this it must be asked, how would they know if they were?
Moses' seat is authority to judge the people. There is nothing about believing their doctrines (something which is actually contradicted by Jesus) or accepting their false religious authority. That is medieval papal conceptions of religion read into an old covenant context.

I'm going to reply to the rest later, but before that, in case I wasn't clear, I wasn't saying that God's revelation is contained in some oral tradition: I was providing the definition of a certain term, namely "tradition". The set of truths that God revealed as Christian doctrine is simply called "Tradition" in the Catholic theological language. The name doesn't matter, perhaps it fits, perhaps it doesn't and is misleading, but it's not the name that matters, but the concept to which the name refers - and this concept is "The set of truths that God revealed as Christian doctrine". This is the definition of a certain set of truths which ought to have some name, and the name that it eventually received is "Tradition". Perhaps that's a bad and misleading name, but we aren't discussing whether the name fits the concept. We are discussing the concept itself.

If you're paying attention at Mass, like you should, then you will have heard the whole Bible read to you every 3 years (in ordinary form) and the entire NT every year (in extraordinary form).

In the Ordinary Form during Sunday and Solemnity Masses, 3 passages from scripture are read straight from the Bible. So, if you can't read, you'd still be able to hear the entirety of scripture read to you over a 3 year period.

So, technically, you don't have to *read* the Bible to be Catholic, and a lot of people are illiterate anyway so they aren't excluded, but you have to *listen* to the Bible read to you to be Catholic.

Attached: wish that were me.png (760x587, 359.82K)

That is what Rome teaches though, isn't it
…which is why I argued the concept is the same
But you must recognize in a Protestant-Catholic context it has the connotation of a set of things revealed outside of scripture

Liturgy of the hours is not a mandatory prayer for the laity specifically because the church feels that it would be an undue burden for literacy to be a requirement of salvation.

The rosary was given by the blessed virgin specifically because people who couldn't read needed an easy to memorize "psalter".

Most christian laity throughout history couldn't read. That's what lectors are for.

now that we're past all that, though:

St. Jerome says – Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of christ.

I say this: you are not illiterate, so get to reading.