Posted on 01/18/2002 6:11:04 AM PST by 1stFreedom
Folks, I'm reposting this article, edited so as to not appear to be attacking anybody.
I'd like your opinion, as this is an article in working progress. If you agree, disagree, have facts & figures, I'd appreciate your comments.
I've purposely left out the controversy over the OT beacause 1. I need to do some research, and 2. The focus of this article is on the agreed upon NT cannon. (It's more for discussion of NT amongst different denominations). I'll write another article on the OT, or incorporate it here.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE BIBLE
INTRODUCTION
Many schools of theology contend that the Church had a falling away, or went apostate, not too long after the death of the last Apostle. The approximate date varies, with 100AD for Jehovah Witnesses and 312AD for Calvinists and Mormons.
ERRANT CHURCH
If the Church had indeed fallen away from the faith, then this presents a very serious problem for the Church. The problem is so large it is a showstopper and it calls into question the validity of the faith itself.
The problem is this: If the Church was indeed apostate, then how could anything handled by the Church be trusted? Could any major (not minor) tenant taught or produced by the errant Church be considered valid? If so, then how can the modern Church accept a major tenant from an apostate Church?
EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Contrary to the current wide availability of the New Testament, the first believers did not have a copy of the New Testament.
The first Christians had the blessing of hearing the teachings of Christ personally. The apostles carried these teachings to various foreign lands for many years afterwards.
These Christians had no cannon of Scriptures, and in fact, some of the scriptures were being written during this period. (Such as the Epistles, which were letters to the various churches.)
Those who came after the time of the twelve apostles continued to teach the Gospel as well as the writings of the Apostles.
But there were also other writings that were considered to be inspired. One could even go as far as to argue that the Didichae or the Shepard of Hermas could be candidates for consideration of being divinely inspired. The early Church had to determine whether or not various writings were inspired. This didn't happen overnight.
Through the course of time, well after the earliest possible date (100ad) of a supposed apostasy, various writings were examined, tested, debated, and validated/invalidated by the Church.
THE CANNON IS RECOGNIZED
Thee first real recognition of the cannon of the New Testament came in the late 300’s (two synods, one in 382 and one in 392). This recognition is not the absolute “official” cannon, but rather just recognition of the NT cannon of Scripture.
NOTE: The Church rarely puts a stamp of official approval on anything until there is a serious dispute. This is why it wasn’t until the Council of Trent that the “official” cannon was “certified” – there was no serious dispute till that time frame (minor disputes? yes). The “unofficial” “official” cannon was recognized for centuries, but only certified at Trent.
THE ACHILLES HEAL OF AN APOSTASY
This formal recognition of the NT Cannon is the problem for believers.
If the Church was in error in the proposed range (100ad-312ad), then how could the errant church be trusted to be correct about the cannon of Scripture? How can one say for certainty that the cannon is correct. Maybe the Didichae belongs in there?
It's an error in logic, a paradox, to say that "An errant Church, misguided and corrupt, produced an infallible cannon of Scripture which is the foundation of the faith for non-Catholic believers."
While it is true that an errant church can teach valid truths, it is not true that an errant church can define the entire faith on which these truths rest.
CONCLUSION
A common reaction to the question of the cannon of the NT is that the Holy Spirit has confirmed it to individuals and the Church. If the Spirit indeed does confirm that the NT cannon is correct, then one has to admit that the either an apostate Church produced an infallible NT cannon (a contradiction) OR, that in fact, the Church wasn't apostate after all.
To reasonable people, the conclusion "that in fact, the church wasn't apostate after all or if it was then the NT cannon and the faith as well is in serious doubt", is inescapable.
-----
Comments??
Here may be the meat of our disagreement. Given the way that you see and understand things, I seriously doubt there are any words I can use to explain my point of view to you.
Basically, the flesh follows the spirit, not the other way around. If you look at the relevant passages in Daniel and Revelation describing the church (passages badly misinterpreted by mellenialists) it is clear that it is a heavenly thing that men participate in spiritually.
The book, MARTYRS MIRROR can be purchased at Amazon.
Ah, the great Catholic delusion. You say they do not because you can't look at the situation objectively.
No matter how many examples are given, you can redefine words and actions to mean what you need them to mean to erase the contradictions, or just carve out exceptions for yourselves that just aren't there.
For all the arguing that the bible can't be self-authenticating, that is exactly the blind assumption you make about Catholicism.
Ah, the great Protestant delusion. You say they do because you can't look at the situation objectively.
For all the arguing that the bible can't be self-authenticating, that is exactly the blind assumption you make about Catholicism.
To not see the impact of trusting one's own interpretation of a work that has spawned thousands of different denominations all claiming the Truth based upon "Scripture alone" is the blindness. Sola Scriptura is a recipe for chaos and splintering. It has reaped a windfall.
SD
There are a few honest, reasonable non Catholics out there. With whom one can have measured discussion. And the lengths the others go to to defame the Church only displays their own fanatical fascination with Her. It is scary to see how much hatred and willfull ignorance is touted about as Truth, but the ultimate end result can be that you will learn more about your own faith.
SD
I was hoping for some quick citations for this thread so all could see. Thanks for the reference anyway.
Almost correct. The truth is that to the Catholic, the words of the Bible mean something; he just doesn't know precisely what they mean, for sure, until the Magisterium, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, orders him what to think about them.
We believe the same. No prophecy is a matter of private interpretation.
Unfortunately, he tried. By adding the word "alone", so as to render "by faith alone", to the Letter to the Romans. He also eliminated 7 books of the old testament as well as seven from the new testament. Of course 50 years later the Lutherans added back the seven NT to include James, II and III John, Revelation, Jude, and I and II Peter.
Regardless, Luther's teaching was based both in the truth of the Scriptures and in the corruption of the contemporary ecclesiastic heirarchy. This is not to say that his teaching was the Protestant version of ex cathedra, but it was a clear indication of the corrupt state of the German Catholic church. The extent of this corruption cannot be denied for three reasons: The huge following Luther had, the appearance of multiple reformers for largely the same reasons, and the admission of the RCC of the corruption.
However, corruption is not exclusive to the RCC. "Protestants" have had similar problems throughout the centuries. The problem lies in the sinful nature of man, the "original sin" which baptism supposedly removes. It is human nature to corrupt any sort of government on any level.
I do not attribute my beliefs to Martin Luther, however. He was a Catholic man who served God's purpose at God's time. Indeed he was produced by the RCC. He is not the author of biblical doctrine any more than you or I. I am classified as a Protestant simply because I am a Christian that is not Catholic. My beliefs or importance do not rest on any protesting of medeival corruption. Yet I do submit myself to authority and the traditions of the church, the ekklasia.
Two mistakes many Catholics make about Protestants and their beliefs are that they did not exist before the Reformation, and that they have an easy-believism. Non-Catholic Christians have existed from the beginning and biblical orthodoxy does not allow for cheap grace.
Two mistakes many Protestants make about Catholics is that the modern RCC is the corrupt church of Luther's time and that it is filled with anti-christian cultic elements. Though some misguided souls can be found believe unorthodox doctrines, this does not mean that it reflects the teaching of the RCC any more than Protestant teaching can be blamed for Swaggart or Bakker (some scholarship gives Pentecostalism it's own not-Protestant category).
Therefore it would be much more interesting to discuss our understanding of the need, requirements and means of salvation, rather than interpretations of the cause and effect of the Reformation.
Precisely. This Orthodox humbly thanks you for your defense of traditional liturgical Christianity.
At first, the splintering was just the result of failed efforts to reform Catholicism, along with the inevitable dividing of earthly religion along political lines.
Now the problem is that every fool in the world sees religion as a get-rich-quick scheme.
Denominations are not so much caused by doctrinal differences as by adherence to charismatic founders. They are sustained by the different errant doctrines of their founders.
The fierce remarks and the hatred of the Church seen here are:
1. fairly common in certain strains of Protestantism; you might as well know.
2. constant reminders to me (as an ex-Protestant) of the sanity, goodness, fresh-air, completenes, and truth that is Catholicism.
3. challenges to be met by further study of your own faith.
4. powerful reminders to appreciate the decency and good will of so many other Protestants.
Inevitable, you say? It somehow resisted this inevitablity for 1500 years. That's remarkable.
The first splinter was a collosol overreaction to abuses in the Church, yes. But the very notion of each individual being essentially his own church, is the truly inevitable result of undermining the authority of the Church. It is inherent in the Protestant ideal, not in Catholicism.
Denominations are not so much caused by doctrinal differences as by adherence to charismatic founders.
And yet there are all these doctrinal differences anyway, inhibiting the reunion of all Christ's children. It is like herding cats to try to unite a people whose principal is that they are the final judge of Scripture.
SD
For instance, a Roman Catholic living centuries ago might have read "until" and "firstborn" in Matthew 1:25, then "brothers and sisters" in Matthew 13:55 and 56, and then read 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, and take it as given that Mary and Joseph had a godly marriage which produced various half-brothers and half-sisters to the Lord Jesus. And then the Magisterium comes along and rules that, no, nothing of what he thought he saw in Scripture is as he thought he saw it, and so forth. So then as a loyal RC, he'd change his understanding of all those passages.
Your contention is that Roman Catholics must wait for the "church" to decide for them on doctrinal issues.
Fair enough. People can choose to be Catholic or not, but if they do so, they must accept the church's doctrine as laid out by Rome/the Pope/Catholic books, etc. Where does one get the entire canon of Catholic doctrine--so he/she can have an clear understanding of the church's beliefs? Obviously, the Bible is not enough, for it must be supplemented with the church's accepted interpretation of each scripture.
What is the Protestant explanation of the passages you refer to in Matthew? Did Jesus have half-brothers and sisters or not?
To me, the passages are plain enough. Christ indeed had half-brothers and sisters born to Joseph and Mary. But what if my "pastor" disagrees with me? Is he right, or am I? There are probably as many interpretations of the Bible as there are Protestant denominations.
So whose version is correct? This is what confuses non-Christians. How do people draw such divergent conclusions based on the same book?
As an independent thinker, I prefer to rely on my own understanding, but how can I be sure my interpretation is right?
I look at the religious threads on FR as wonderful learning oportunities. Some of the links (both Catholic and Protestant) provided have lead me to deeper knowledge and understanding and most importantly, a deeper faith. Why, I just attended my first Latin Mass (since I was about 4) due to FR posters. I had no idea they were available. I am learning about SSPX'ers and all that as well. I understand the fundamentalist mentality much better than I did before I started "lurking" here.
Thank you to all the well spoken, thoughtful, literate Catholics (unlike myself) who post here - you all (and you know who you are) say what I feel but am not able to put into words.
The Christian is free to go where the text of God's Word takes him. With regards to the passages I cited, the brief response is that those passages mean what the plain sense of the words, in ordinary usage, suggest. There are no contextual clues to the contrary. Of course Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. Of course she was a godly wife thereafter — no reason to slander her by suggesting that she defrauded Joseph for the rest of their lives together — and had normal sexual relations with her husband, resulting in the birth of omre children, Jesus' half-siblings.
As to differences of opinion, the pressure is where God meant it to be. Read the opening words of Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, and on and on. God did not address Himself to a special caste or office. He spoke to His children. It is ours to hear Him, our right and our responsibility. It is not a game of "telephone."
Do you think God wants us to be confused and unable to come to a sure conclusion or force us to rely on the intelect of ourselves or others and just hope we got it right? I think not. If you go to God in prayer, honestly desiring truth, he will give you an answer that you can have faith in. Look at James 1:5, he promised to answer our questions.
Now when he answers me, I can't then prove to you that He did. Each person who wants it will have to get it from God themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.