It's Not In The Bible Syndrome

By Kevin Anetor Ose. (A Roman Catholic Priest of the Diocese of Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria)

              Rev. Fr Kelvin Anetor Ose

It's not everyday I'm moved to write out of righteous indignation. When it comes to casting blames, I'm usually quick to blame 'us' (priests) for not doing enough. I believe we can continue to do more. However, we cannot ignore the fact that many Catholics are plain ignorant, through their own fault. Yes! Today there's information explosion. With a single click of the mouse, or with a finger tap on one's smartphone, one could get totally blown away with information, on just about any topic. You can also tell the authenticity of your source of information. So why do we still have Catholics without an accurate knowledge of their history? What stops us from looking up information about any aspect of the faith we're not sure of? Huh? Good professionals in their various fields have to read volumes of books to stay good. Good Catholics must as well learn the habit of reading about their faith. Oh yes! Faith needs to be built and nurtured. One cannot, I repeat, one cannot do away with the three main sources of Faith - Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium (the Holy Teaching Authority of the Church). Our faith does not come from the Bible alone. We have no apologies to anyone for that. Our Faith is from Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Teaching of the Church.

Yesterday, a good friend of mine told me she was having an argument with a Jehovah's witness about celebrating Christmas. According to her, this witness said it's not in the Bible to celebrate Christmas since Jesus only said we should remember his death. Does that even make sense? This witness was lucky he/she didn't have that conversation with me. In the first place I have strong reservations about the Bible of the Jehovah's witnesses. I know that their Bible has been carefully reworked to mirror their beliefs. What will be the basis of our discussion? We have different bibles for God's sake. Which of them would we use in making biblical references? But even at that, does their own bible say categorically that we shouldn't celebrate Christmas (I'd not be surprised if it does)? Unfortunately, Catholics today have Protestant bibles. In fact, I found out just recently that many Catholics do not even know the difference between Catholic and Protestant bibles. We have 73 books in our bible, while our separated brethren have only 66. While we have 46 Old Testament books, they have only 39. We both have 27 books in the New Testament. You can look at this video for insight: http://youtu.be/TQEu6p9f9Nc You may also want to look up this link: http://youtu.be/PjvXbotd9Lw

I've just had it up to here (I'm making that palm-on-the throat gesture right now, trust me) with the "it's-not-in-the-bible" syndrome. Oh please! How many of these people even know how the Bible came about? The Bible itself is a product of the living tradition of the Catholic Church. It is a compilation of many divinely inspired books. Did we always have a compilation of individually written books known as the Bible? Was it not until the council of Nicea in 325 AD that compilation started on the books that were considered canonical by the Catholic Church? This was an endeavour that didn't end until the council of Carthage in 397 AD. Is it not ridiculous that those asking the is-it-in-the-Bible question are those with incomplete bibles? Good Lord!

Again, unless I'm totally mistaken (and I can assure you that I'm not) the Bible itself says that it does not contain everything. This is a matter of common sense. Did you really think everything about faith, religion, morals... is in the Bible? Are you kidding me? Have you not read this passage: "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25; RSV)? Oh, maybe this portion of John's gospel has been edited in the bibles of our new generation churches (again, I'd not be surprised).

Many times, the apostles themselves referred to oral tradition; this is simply because it's impossible for a community to exist without an oral tradition. Why is this so difficult to understand? In his first letter to the Corinthians, St Paul says: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2). Which traditions was he referring to? Huh? In his admonitions to Timothy, the same Paul says: "...what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim. 2:2). Going further, he says to the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thess. 2:15). Where are those teachings of Paul by words of mouth today? Are they in the Bible? What about third John's unwritten words, "I had much to write you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink; I hope to see you soon, and we will talk together face to face. (3 John 13-14)? Do we know about these things that he intended to talk about face to face? Are they written down? I don't intend to over flog this matter.

If the early apostles had the kind of teaching authority that we have mentioned above, why not today's successor of Peter? It is so ridiculous. We cannot believe whatever the Pope, together with the college of cardinals, define as infallible and true because one anointed man of a new generation Church said so? Or because ignorant preachers are quick to tread on waters they don't even understand? I don't get it. The Catholic Church has the authority to interpret scriptures, through the successor of Peter, the Pope. Peter himself said, "First of all you must understand this, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20-21). We cannot all be running around, claiming to have prejudiced and subjectivised interpretations of Scripture. Come on!

Is it in the Bible that your Church was formed by its present founder? Is it in the Bible that you should begin to rubbish the doctrines and teachings of the one true Church? Is it in the Bible that your pastors should be richer than some countries, own private jets, and go around with body guards? Is it in the Bible that you should be a member of your present Church? Do you see how stupid this manner of questioning is? For our sake, I hope we do!

He who does not know and knows he does not know is wise. He who does not know and does not know he does not know is a fool. In dealing with people, we must be able to tell the difference. There's no point arguing with someone who's bent on rubbishing our faith. Such a person does not know and does not know he does not know. However, it is reasonable to engage in meaningful discussions with one who genuinely seeks clarification on matters that are beyond his/her immediate understanding.

God bless you!