The bible and the Catholic Church

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

You read the Bible without its proper context. It does not float in a vacuum, waiting to be picked up and interpreted by the next random passerby according to their "personal inspiration". It is the sacred and precious possession of the Church of Christ, to whom He left the authority and the promised guidance of the Spirit to interpret it.

You do not know how I read the bible..I am a student of the bible..I read and study it because it is the inspired infallible word of God

The Popes die..Aquinus, and Augustine are old dead men..The word of God is living and sharper than a double edged sword . It was never written for scholars. It was written for the common man. Others have told you that you can not understand it that you need them to understand what it is saying. That is not true. Why do you think that the Epistles were not all directed to Peter if that is the case? Those are doctrinal ,teaching letters directed to everyday men and women. The same Holy Spirit that guided them to all truth is there for us too.

Why would He do such an outlandish thing? Perhaps we should ask, "Why the scandal of the cross?" Or, "Why ministers who sin?" He did it because you need a living, breathing, thinking person, the Church -- who can think and speak your language and culture, someone like your mother, in fact -- to read, explain and interpret Scripture to you. Because you don't come "prepackaged" with all the answers.

Perhaps you really do need to ask why He did that.I would respectfully say He didn't..it was never the "possession" of the Catholic Church. No one owns God and that is His word. The early church ,which evolved into the church at Rome was the steward of it, but God removed it from them and gave it to those that would translate it and distribute it and put it into the hands of men ,as God had always intended.

2 Timothy
14But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Except that it is etched in stone.

No, this is not etched in stone. The Church is quite clear this is a prudential decision that, should the times make that the best thing to do in its view, could change.

The issue is that the Bible allows for bishops and deacons to be married, and the RCC demands that they do otherwise. By what right does the RCC put a yoke of slavery on a man whom the Christ preached in the Scriptures has made free (against Gal. 5:1)?

Interesting choice of words. One could also argue that the Bible allows for slavery, and that the Catholic Church demands otherwise. By what right do we Catholics put the yoke of (no) slavery on slave owners? Explain this, if you could. Does the Bible also seem to allow for slavery? Or does it condemn it somewhere? And yet, can you tell me if you think slavery is the best thing for our society?

That the Bible has passages that can be interpreted to allow for it does not mean it should always be done.

Much of my response to Dave applies to your arguments as well: If Paul allowed the freedom for a bishop to have a wife, by what right does the papacy put the yoke of celibacy on him?

By what right? This is neither here nor there, but this statement reminds me of my mother after she and my father divorced. She refuses the Church’s instructions on remaining celibate, stating “by what right” do these men demand I be celibate? Who are they to tell me what to do? She doesn’t really get it.

Anyway, back on this subject. The Pope does not run out, grab some man off the street, Yell AH HAA!! And demand that he be celibate. You chose to enter or you chose not to, so claiming that the papacy puts the yoke of celibacy on him is not accurate. Men chose to accept the conditions the Holy See requires, it is not forced on them.

By what right? At the very least the right of any employer to set the terms of employment. Any employer has the right (well, not in this country anymore, but that is another thing) to say this is the kind of person we want for the job. Really, in the end this is a prudential decision. The Church feels right now that it wants certain things in its priestly candidates. Celibacy is one of the many requirements. There are others, such as literacy. By what right does the Church demand that its priests be literate? Yet it is a reasonable prudential decision. Same thing. You contend that the Bible speaks of married Bishops, but not illiterate Bishops, and thus its not the same, I’m guessing. However, again, the Bible doesn’t say Bishops have to marry or even be allowed to marry. It just says that if he is, he will only have one wife. This is a prohibition against multiple wives and unruly kids, not a requirement or endorsement of having wives and kids.

Since these people will represent the Church, the Pope, and the Bishop, the Bishop have every right to say this is who we want. Again, Paul did not say that a Bishop had to be married, or that the Church had to allow Bishops to marry. Further, he spoke glowingly about celibacy in the service of the Lord. This gives what is called discretion. The Church could leave that discretion to the individual priest, but it has chosen to exercise it instead. There is nothing wrong with that. It counters nothing in the Bible.

Nor, does he applaud married Bishops.
He assumes that bishops and deacons will be married. There is no hint that he ever considered celibacy to be a part of God's calling to the role of a teacher or elder of the Church.

Lots to disagree with here. First, we are talking about priests, not just what we today consider teachers and elders. You can still serve the Church in the married state by teaching the faith or as a parish elder (of sorts). Further, one of the three stages of ordination (the three are Bishop, priest, deacon) still allows for married men. Again, a prudential thing. For this office, and its lesser demands, the Church does not think that the lack of celibacy distracts for the duties the office has. See 1 Corinthians again.

Back to the “no hint he considered celibacy to be a part of God’s calling to the role ….” 1 Corinthians 7, he states “I wish that all were as I myself am” seeming to indicate that he considered celibacy to be a wonderful thing for all people, not just those called to teach. Further:

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife,
34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

This is pretty much what we say about priestly celibacy. Actually, its what the Catechism cites to in its section on priestly celibacy, IIRC. This is why it is done. The divided attention thing, a celibate priest is free to focus solely on serving God. A married priest is not. Again, this is not something mandated by the Bible, it is simply an option left open, one the Pope wants for those who work for him, and one the priest has voluntarily chosen to accept when he gets ordained.

In the context of Paul's struggle, yes. However, it is no more of a stretch to take the principles taught by the Apostles in the proper relationship between faith, works, and the Law and apply them to the RCC's particular brand of legalism

What is our brand of legalism on the subject? Its hard to argue it without knowing what you mean by this, and I don’t want to make assumptions. I would recommend that you read the Council of Trent on the subject, if you haven’t. Starting with the first canon on justification:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

than it is to see God's condemnation of child sacrifice in ancient Israel and extending it to include our present-day abomination of abortion.

This confused me. What are you saying here? Could you explain this?

the many Catholic holy days and fasts: If I do not keep them, do I sin or miss out on an indulgence? What if I have a steak on a Friday (as I just did)?

Holy days are worship. Fasting wins great praise in the Bible. I see little wrong with asking that of the faithful. As to having a steak on Friday, I don’t see that as a sin. Were you under some command to not have meat on Friday, it would be a small sin of disobedience, but that is it.

What then are the works that Scripture commends to us, if not the strict adherence to an external law?

Well, I think Scripture makes that abundantly clear, the verse posted above being just one of them:

Matthew 25
31 "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
34 Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
37 Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
44 Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'
45 Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Even the Sacraments, at least in our view, are explicitly commanded in the Bible. A thorough discussion of everything Scripture commands of us here would take some time though.

That's a far cry from Catholic teaching that missing Mass without good reason constitutes a mortal sin that, should you be killed by a bus the following day, will land you in Hell. Indeed, how can a person be truly set free from the curse of the Law (Gal. 5:1) if he is still in fear of the condemnation of the Law?

What is heaven, but the eternal and unceasing worship of our Lord? See Revelation. If you care so little for worshipping your God that for little reason you blow off keeping holy the Sabbath, at the very least keeping holy one measly hour of the Sabbath, what on earth leads you to believe you are worthy to enter into that eternal worship? If you want to worship your ice fishing or your football team on Sunday instead, how can you really claim to have faith or anything else either?

This is the type of objection made by our liberals. Ohhh, it’s just not fair. But it is fair. If you want to worship Him unceasingly, start now or forever hold your peace.

Yes, but you don't take them out of context (the rest of Scripture, which says that faith saves, not adherence to the Law or works) and put the cart before the horse.

You can be accused of the same, here. First, the context and the rest of Scripture must be considered, and they make it plain that absent a living faith, e.g., works, you are not saved. Second faith does not save, that is the cart before the divine horse, Jesus Christ saves, grace saves. Faith is a free gift that comes from above.

It's a matter of Scripture saying one thing and Rome another. Which should I believe?

Scripture does not say the Church has to allow married Bishops. Thus, Scripture says a couple things, and Rome chooses to follow one of the courses. Not quite so bad.

patent +AMDG

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.