The bible and the Catholic Church

[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??

[SoothingDave]

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 hope that was a licit and valid indult Mass and not a valid but illicit one from one of the splinter groups like the SSPX.

SD

[RobbyS]

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. Corruption cannot be denied simply because it ALWAYS exists owing to the sinful nature of men. But the degree of corruption was exaggerated by Luther and the rest so that they could justify their rebellion. Reformers who move toward revolution always take such a tact. The Jacobins exaggerated the corruption of the Old Regime; the Bolsheviks that of the Czars. Luther was a political as well as a religious rebel, because his movement was also a nationalist and a separatist movement--one which pitted Germany against Italy, some local princes against the emperor and those local princes who remained Catholic. Most of the pre-Lutheran reformers abandoned Luther and stayed with the Old Church, because they had no stomach for the violence that he and Zwingli caused. The Peasant War seems to have been the dividing point in the history of the German Reformation, where Luther ditched the people and chose the princes.

[american colleen]

Oh ya!

Sanctioned by Cardinal Bernard Law of Massachusetts - currently under fire, but not for approving illicit Latin Masses.

No danger of me becoming an SSPX'er either but I am glad I know about them as I can weed through some of the stuff I find on the 'net. Their stuff starts out great and I like some of what they have to say but I love John Paul II and I believe he is truly blessed, as we are in having him in these trying times.

Thanks for your concern!

[SoothingDave]

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.

The Bible, as you are discovering, often requires an interpreter. The Catholic Church has a Catechism (Greek for "Teaching"), a book which covers all that we hold to be true. It is very exact, and can be very dense, reading. You can find it here.

It should be noted that the book is not a line by line "reader" to accompany the Bible, and that in fact little of the Bible has been given a "definite" meaning. The Church, contrary to the impressions given by our detractors, leaves much of the Bible open to speculation. The Church has always in its history been reluctant to state that one must hold a certain verse to mean a certain thing. Its usual mode is to define what is not an acceptable interpretation, rather than what is.

What is the Protestant explanation of the passages you refer to in Matthew? Did Jesus have half-brothers and sisters or not?

Protestants, in general, ridicule the idea that a woman could remain a virgin all of her life. So these passages are taken at face value, with a lack of historical and linguistic understanding. The language Jesus spoke lacked words to express other familial relationships like "cousin." It is the position of the Church that "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus are other relatives, not couteral siblings. They may have been half brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph, making him a widower, or they could be other blood relatives.

Reading the words in English it is very easy to be mistaken about the meaning.

So whose version is correct? This is what confuses non-Christians. How do people draw such divergent conclusions based on the same book?

Catholics, and the Orthodox, place the authority in the Church which Jesus started. They believe that we are to take our questions to the Church, who can then answer them. The Church has an authority to settle disputes, and Jesus Himself directed us to listen to the Church and Scripture calls the Church the pillar of Truth.

Protestants claim that the Holy Spirit will privately lead any sincere seeker to Truth. This is belied in the chaos that is evident in the Protestant world. Either a lot of folks are deluded or there is no One Truth.

SD

[Aggie Mama]

Unfortunately, the link isn't loading right now. Basically, everything on there. I get angry, I don't care to give away all of my material possessions, and probably lots of other things on there I fall short of. What is disheartening is that I know that I can never achieve what is expected of me. I'll keep plugging away and do my best, but I'll never be able to give up cursing, and I don't want to give the homeless, alcoholic guy standing on the corner outside the mall, the change in my purse.

[SoothingDave]

Sanctioned by Cardinal Bernard Law of Massachusetts - currently under fire, but not for approving illicit Latin Masses.

My bishop will not approve such. But I am too young to long for them and he is not such a bad bishop overall. There are tons of them that are worse, for sure!

I have a sister named Colleen. That kind of pegs my ethnicity.

SD

[B-Chan]

The Christian is free to go where the text of God's Word takes him...

...which could be just about anywhere, as the thousands of Protestant denominations, each the "one true Church of Christ, each "acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit", attest.

[Iowegian]

Protestants, in general, ridicule the idea that a woman could remain a virgin all of her life.

No, this is a not what we believe. It isn't that a woman couldn't be a virgin all of her life, I'm certain this happens often enough. It is that the text of the Scriptures not only lacks evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity and states otherwise, but also quite clearly shows us that it would be against both Jewish custom and Christian teaching for her to do so. It is actually an attack on Mary's character (because she was a married woman) to say that she remained a virgin for her whole life.

[ThomasMore]

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.

This, I believe, is the precise direction ecumenical talks must proceed. There is a thread, "The Neverending Story", that I was a part of for the first 50 threads (I occassion it now and again), that started by examining the reasons why ecumenical talks ceased between the Southern Baptists and the RCC. Some said that the thread would end as abruptly as did the talks between the SB and RCC. After months and months of posts it is still going strong (just as I predicted). There needs to be honest and civil discussion about why we are where we are in Christianity.

One of the problems I have seen on FR is that RC's are pegged as having wrong doctrine, period! The RCC has interpreted Scripture just as others do. When I try to present my case, I always return to the earliest non-scriptural documents available to see how those Christians interpreted what was handed down in the faith. i.e. St. Ignatius of Antioch died at a very old age in 110 AD. He was the Bishop of Antioch and wrote some beautiful letters to many of the Churchs that Paul started. He may have heard the Apostles preach, who knows! I find it hard to believe that he would have corrupted the faith so badly and then gone to his death for that faith!? I would love to discuss how this sheds light on how WE ought to interpret Sacred Scripture. If the church was practicing certain things at this time, would these practices have been such a corruption? Many of the early writings deal with the heresies of the day. Yet I've found no writings stating that the faith that Ignatius practiced was illegitimate.

Yes, we need to talk because Christ prayed that we would be united in faith. God help us!

[patent]

What is disheartening is that I know that I can never achieve what is expected of me.

The only thing that exceeds our imperfection is the forgiveness God offers. Take heart and rest in Him as best you can.

patent

[RnMomof7]

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.

You are correct,the bible states that Mary was a full wife to Joseph..

Matthew 1 24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus..

Pretty clear that at some point they indeed were husband and wife. It is out of some need to make Mary superhuman that her being a faithful submissive wife is dismissed..

[BibChr]

I'll tell God you hate His way of doing things. I already know what He's going to say, though.

Dan

[Iowegian]

...which could be just about anywhere, as the thousands of Protestant denominations, each the "one true Church of Christ, each "acting under the guidance of the Holy Spirit", attest.

It's interesting that you criticize Protestants for this. Show me anywhere in a Protestant church's statement of faith (or like document) that claims it to be the one true church. We generally believe that all true believers in Christ, regardless of denomination, make up the true church. Now I have read many RC documents that actually do make this arrogant claimof being the "one true church" and any honest Catholic will agree that the official view of your church is exactly this.

[SoothingDave]

I did say "in general," and in general we here crude "wink wink" "How could a married man resist having sex" "nudge nudge know what I mean" arguments from non Catholics.

I apologize to the more thoughtful folks out there.

SD

[SoothingDave]

The Bible states elsewhere that a woman had no children "until the day of her death." The implication is not that she did afterward. The English is misleading here. There is ambiguity. One can interpret it either way.

It seems to us that this is a statement attesting to Mary's virginity at the time of Jesus' birth. It says nothing about afterward.

SD

[american colleen]

That's too bad your Bishop won't approve them - I'm sure you know that they are supposed to make them available per JPII.

Here in Ma., we only have two parishes that have licit indult Masses. Both are really tough to get to and the one in Boston is in a dodgy area. They don't make it easy!

I was a little kid when they stopped the Latin but I did make my First Communion in 1967 before they ripped the kneelers out of the churches - some of the Traditional stuff I remember, some I don't. I loved the Latin Mass, I loved the beauty and majesty that we don't have in most of the Parishes now - what a way to honor God! No jeans, no women in pants, no sneakers on the altar and NO GUITARS!!! The Christmas Eve Mass at my regular parish threw me over the edge when the Priest tossed a baseball back and forth to the kids in the pews - he was trying to explain that you can't do anything by yourself, you need others. True enough, but throwing a baseball during Mass to illustrate? What has happened to us? We lost something somewhere down the line.

[Matchett-PI]

"Comments??"

"Calvinists" do not believe the Church had a "falling away" in A.D. 312, along with "Mormons". This is argumentum ad ignoratiam and straw man.

Perhaps this fellow is thinking of anabaptists?

The Reformers, such as John Calvin, did not believe the Church had a "falling away" in A.D. 312--not even close. Indeed, the Reformers argued vigorously for a Reformation based upon historic catholic (i.e., *universal*) orthodoxy as based upon the Holy Scripture. The Reformers correctly observed that the institution known as the Roman Catholic church had denied certain issues of catholic Christianity and had substituted a false system of authority that obfuscated core tenents of the Gospel.

The Reformers, while holding to Sola Scriptura as the final authority in matters of faith and doctrine, held the historic, universal creeds of the Christian faith in the highest esteem (i.e., Nicene, Chalcedon, Athanasian), and held the writings of the ante-nicene fathers in high regard and instructive, though not determinative.

Moreover, the Roman Catholic church did not "produce" the Bible as [a] the Old Testament was in common use for millennia before the Roman Catholic church was founded and [b] the New Testament was also in common use and recognition long before the Roman Catholic church came into existence.

Dr. Eric Svendsen addresses this straw man of Romanism if anyone is interested HERE

[RobRoy]

>>"Achilles heal" should be "Achilles heel." Spell check *cannot* replace a good dictionary.<<

In a letter to my wife (although not at the time), I referred to her hair as her "hare." Trust me, I know the difference. If I had bothered to proof read carefully I would have spotted it.

She got a good laugh out of it at the time, though. And it will bring an occasional chuckle to the both of us for the rest of our lives 8^>

[american colleen]

The Greek word transcribed "until" does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus' birth, nor does it exclude it.

I remember reading this several times in books detailing the original translation from aramaic to greek to latin to english.

Just my two cents. :)

[Some hope remaining.]

Protestants, in general, ridicule the idea that a woman could remain a virgin all of her life. So these passages are taken at face value, with a lack of historical and linguistic understanding. The language Jesus spoke lacked words to express other familial relationships like "cousin."

First let me say that I tend to be aligned more closely to the Catholic position than the Protestant position on the main issues discussed in this thread but here's one where I have to disagree. It's not my intent to attack your beliefs here, but rather to clarify why I believe differently.

My first reaction to reading this statement is that the King James version of the Bible certainly does use the word cousin in Luke 1:36 and Luke 1:58 in reference to the relationship of Mary and Elizabeth. In my Bible there's a footnote on the word cousin saying the Greek actually says "relative", not necessarily cousin.

So if Jesus didn't have brothers or sisters why couldn't they use the same word to say relative if they didn't really mean brother? John the Baptist was a close relative but they don't refer to him as Jesus' brother.

54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

While they were incorrect about him being the carpenter's son, my interpretation would have to be that they were talking about direct family here. I acknowledge that your interpretation is different.

I actually like the wording of this verse better: (Mark 6:3)

3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

One more: (Galations 1:18-19)

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

The above doesn't rule out the other possibility you mentioned, i.e. that they could be earlier children of Joseph from a previous wife. I don't think that's the case but I can't point to anything either for or against it.