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??
I do read links that are not Catholic links. You can't help it when you do a search for biblical things. I really do like to know what Non-C's believe, it helps me in my own search and directs me to study why Catholics believe what they do. Things that I have always accepted and not read about.
As an aside, lots of the Protestant sites really slam the Catholics pretty good. I don't find that the Catholics sites are intolerant like that.
I'm married to a Lutheran, by the way.
Great.
How do you account for John 6:22-59?
I'm not sure what you are asking, please be specific.
Is Jesus contradicting himself?
No, he was explaining his teachings to the disciples, because they were confused about how to take it, literally like those who turned away did, or spiritually - as He said it was intended.
You didn't look at my link because you didn't tell me it didn't work!
Not yet, but I will.
But the meaning of the language is general -- meaning it is a linguistic problem, tackled by language experts when it is translated. People are very good at this, and the various translations are in remarkable agreement.
I've noticed that too, and especially here (the election of JFK apparently didn't convince them that the Catholic Church doesn't threaten American sovereignty). Forty years of ecumenism have left us in the Church shocked and unprepared when such hatred and ignorance is flung at us.
Really? I've seen some.
I think the difference in John 6:22-59 is that Jesus is saying consistently "My Flesh" and "I am the bread of life" to explain what we Catholics believe but in John 6:60-71 He is explaining about eternal life and He uses the phrase "the flesh" and explains that the spirit gives life and not "the flesh" meaning the physical body. In other words, two entirely different topics.
I might be wrong here, but I think that even Martin Luther believed in the Eucarist.
Is it not amazing that this godless and deviant cult is the loudest voice for moral rectitude and a Godly lifestyle in the entire world? It must be terribly galling to hear the Holy Father begging the world year after year to end abortion, to preserve and sanctify marriage, to protect the family and the children, to foresake homosexuality -- to abandon the Culture of Death and return to Jesus Christ!
Oh, I forgot -- this universality is somehow "proof" of the "cult's" falsity. Nevermind that Christ said to teach and baptize "all the nations" and to "be one, as the Father is one".
My family assures me that I'm stubborn and opinionated, so I doubt I can claim to be an unbiased anything! :-)
"Routing spectator"? Maybe once I've been a Freeper longer I'll know what that means. Right now, I don't have a clue! I posted to the thread once earlier, but have only had time to skim between feeding the horse, helping my wife with dinner, and reading bedtimes stories. Our nightly Psalm and chapter from Lord of the Rings (Tolkien, another pesky Catholic.) It seemed to me that Colleen's posts were basically being replied to with "you foolish Catholic" type answers, rather than seeing an forthright discussion of the issues she raised.
Not Catholic nor Protestant, but Orthodox. So I don't really have skin in this game. We think you're both wrong! ;)
However, we do also believe in the ever-virginity of Mary, so on this point I happen to side with Colleen.
And as for the Orthodox devotion to Scripture, here's a wonderful quote I came across this evening:
"From his first entry into the monastery a monk should devote all possible care and attention to the reading of the Holy Gospel. He should study the Gospel so closely that it is always present in his memory. At every moral decision he takes, for every act, for every thought, he should always have ready in his memory the teaching of the Gospel ... Keep on studying the Gospel until the end of your life. Never stop. Do not think that you know it enough, even if you know it all by heart."
St. Ignatii Brianchaninov
Oh I have, and if I can find the one I'm thinking of I will link it later.
Of course we have theological differences, I am not talking about that.
All it takes to get very personally attacked from many professional RC apologists is theological differences.
I might be wrong here, but I think that even Martin Luther believed in the Eucarist.
Well that would hardly be surprising since he was a RC. ;)
St. Ignatii Brianchaninov
That's a beautiful quotation. And of course, the liturgical tradition which the Catholics and Orthodox received from the Apostles and Church Fathers is literally saturated with Scripture -- in fact, it is the Gospel reenacted before us, culminating with Christ's own single self-sacrifice and the building-up of the Church, His Body. God bless.
I hope you don't think attacking is a difference of opinion? The apologist sites detail whatever differences there are between us - it is like - point, counterpoint. No name calling or I would be the first one to write a note to the webmaster. I don't think God wants us to go there! How can you convince someone of anything by being nasty?
True, Martin was a Catholic until he created his own religion - but he still believed in the Eucarist afterwards. Again, I could be wrong here, but I think almost all Christians believe what the Catholics do (regarding the Eucarist) until fairly recently...(like a couple of hundred years, I mean).
From an Orthodox perspective, one of the oddities of the seemingly endless debates between Catholics and Protestants is the intensity of the emphasis on scholarship.
"As we read the Bible, we are all the time gathering information, wrestling with the sense of obscure sentences, comparing and analyzing. But this is secondary. The real purpose of Bible study is much more than this - to feed our love for Christ, to kindle our hearts into prayer, and to provide us with guidance in our personal life. The study of words should give place to an immediate dialogue with the living Word Himself. "Whenever you read the Gospel," says St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, "Christ Himself is speaking to you. And while you read, you are praying and talking with Him." ...
Approached in a prayerful manner, the Bible is found to be always contemporary - not just writings composed in the distant past but a message addressed directly to me here and now...As a book uniquely inspired by God and addressed to each of the faithful personally, the Bible possesses sacramental power, transmitting grace to the reader, bringing him to a point of meeting and decisive encounter. Critical scholarship is by no means excluded, but the true meaning of the Bible will only be apparent to those who study it with their spiritual intellect as well as their reasoning brain."
Bishop Kallistos Ware, "The Orthodox Way"
Are you trying to be offensive? My reply would be that Constantine started his own religion, maybe that's where Luther got the idea.
I do love to read the religious posts but sometimes it is tough posting anything. You can get slammed! Glad you were around to help!
I have had a huge curiousity about other religions since I was a kid and when I ask a quesion I really do want to hear the other side, not push my agenda. I hate it when you get a page of bible quotes and the person says nothing about what/why they believe as they do. I just like people to understand us and not believe what they are told or read on non-Catholic sites - which can be *kind of* biased.
Anyway, today is a great day for Catholics as the SSPX'ers are back in the fold.
What was wrong with Constantine?
Christ is Born!
Glorify Him!
He started his own religion.
I agree 100% with your posting. I hope I wasn't getting into the "who has the best scholars" game... let's face it, anyone who attempts to translate the bible has it all over most of us.
I think at times some translations did depend on who was doing the translating... an agenda thing, but for the most part, I hate to get hung up on a word and then get into a big thing about it.
It is a beautiful book and I've had some of my most peaceful times when I've been reading it.
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.