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??

[Iowegian]

I agree that we probably have exhausted the Constantine subject (at least for now). Can you define "the Church" as you use the term in your posts? Thanks.

[Iowegian]

In regard to your definition of "the Church" I agree with almost all of it. But can you give a short answer to "Who is it"? Yours definition is very vague in practice.

[Publius6961]

He obviously has no argument. Ridicule is always a substitute for legitimate argument when there is none.

An astute observation, but not applied universally enough.
This article has no argument; simply unsupported premises leading to a preset conclusion.
The bible can be considered a fascinating historical document and analyzed and discussed rationally and endlessly from a secular perspective.
The word "apostasy" has no role in such a discussion.
The alternative, using the bible as a religious document and using the circular argumentent of endlessly quoting from it as a way to "prove" a point, is a waste of time.

I enjoy learning new things and being exposed to new perspectivesm so long as the discussion is limited to historical facts, the players, the opposing arguments, the material in question and the conclusions. History is an endless fascinating thing, but there can never be a "hobby" interest that can sustitute for a lifetime of real and scholarly research.
And that's what I see here. There is no need to prove any one Christian variant is "better" than another and any attempt to go there just dooms the discussion to become another pointless exercise.

[Iowegian]

Can you do a little research to support your allegation that Constantine started his own religion and let me know what you come up with?

Right after you prove that Luther started his own religion, which is what you posted yesterday and how this all got started. Please post facts (not RC sources and propaganda), don't just spout off.

Peace.

[Publius6961]

So the commandment from God that he knew: "Thou shall not murder" did not apply to him? IOW he wasn't such a bad guy, he's just misunderstood. Riiiight. LOL

Yes, exactly right.
What part of historical context can't you understand?
The combination of ignorance and arrogance can lead to silly posturing.

Just as today we live in a constitutional republic, but the congress makes laws that do not apply to themselves, and criminals like Clinton manipulate power to commit what would be for the rest of us crimes plain and simple.
You might ask, what part of the constitution do they believe does not apply to them? Nothing new here.
Is there a point you are trying to make? Why not be explicit about it?

[Iowegian]

I don't claim or pretend to know all. There is definitely a split opinion about Constantine among those who have studied him, but it usually falls out along denominational lines. Those who have a vested interest in his "sainthood" and actions usually defend him beyond all reason. Let me rephrase my comments to: if Constantine was guilty of murder, then...

[Iowegian]

Is there a point you are trying to make? Why not be explicit about it?

I think the postee understood the point, even if you didn't, which is: murder was murder then, just as it is now. If he or you doesn't choose to agree that Constantine was guilty, is another matter. In historical terms, does the real definition of murder change or is it constant?

[RobbyS]

My information is that Constantine was not baptized until he was on his death bed. But if he was "saved earlier," through his vision of Christ, does he not qualify as a Christian despite his later crimes?

[RobbyS]

Luther started his own religion Luther did start his own "Church," which he, of course, thought of as the "true" Church, as opposed to the "corrupt" Church of Rome.

[Dataman]

It is one thing if one personally holds heretical / unorthodox beliefs. But some choose to teach and/or enforce their false beliefs on others under the guise of "Christianity".

I do not disagree with you. It is how some Protestants define heresy that creates problems that need not be. If you have sound reference material available, look up "heresy." Many of these minor doctrines that create such friction are not heresy.

After all, what is our purpose here on the earth? And how are we to accomplish that? Shall we approach the unregenerate with the Gospel only after forcing him to confess and renounce every doctrine with which we disagree? That is not a requirement for salvation unless the doctrine in question is heresy. Correct teaching is extremely important and itself is a prominent NT (Pastoral Epistles esp) teaching but you only have to get a few things right to get right with Christ:

Christ is God made man.
All have sinned and fall short of God's standard.
The wages of sin is death.
Only Christ's sacrifice can make us right with God and save us from the penalty of sin.
"If your lips confess that Jesus is Lord and if you believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, then you will be saved. By believing from the heart you are made righteous; by confessing with your lips you are saved. (Romans 10:10 ff, Jerusalem Bible).
When the Jews asked Peter what they had to do to be saved, he said, " You must repent and evey one of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:37ff.)

Can any Catholic or non-Catholic disagree?

[RobbyS]

There is no need to prove any one Christian variant is "better" than another and any attempt to go there just dooms the discussion to become another pointless exercise. That, of course, depends on the meaning of "'better'" The argument, however, has always been about which church was closest to the original in doctrine and practice, or which was Church and which was "sect."

[JHavard]

Also, please note that the traditional story is that while Constantine had a Christian battlefield vision and began openly supporting Christianity, he himself was not baptized until his deathbed. Thus, in your comparison to Paul, an argument could be made that the acts of Constantine's rule should not be held against him anymore than Paul's complicity in the death of Stephen.

Hi Wordsmith, first time we've met,(cordially held out my hand in friendship) Lol

None of us are able to judge the heart of Constantine, God will take care of that part, but we are to judge sin, and condemn it where we see it, and on the outside it appears he had an evil streak as well as a good one as is true with most people, but a ruler's sins are recorded for everyone to see, whereby ours go un-noticed by history.

To me these legal executions as you call them appear to be more vengeful then mechanical as most executions are, such as scalding his wife to death, or strangling someone, that points to a revengeful murder and a certain pleasure taken in the act.

If a man's life is 50% decent or good, and is 50% evil, and he dies, his life is looked at as an evil life, since the effects of his evil are remembered, more then hi acts of good.

If a man's life is 50% good, and 50% evil, and on his death bed, he repents and is converted, he is forgiven by God for all his past sins, but God does not then give him credit for those 50% good things he did with out God's Spirit in him, which with the bad thing's forgiven him, all that was left were the good things, therefore it is deemed he will be rewarded for his 50% good he did in the kingdom, and the 50% evil is no more.

WE will be judged on what we do after conversion, not before, and if he died immediately after conversion before he had time to make any changes in his life, then the only credit he will receive in heaven is that he repented, such as the thief on the cross, but he will receive no rewards, as others who spend their life bearing fruits.

His rewards may simply be that he attained eternal life, but he may have no other rewards, or be given any real responsibilities compared to the patient Christian who didn't have the opportunities that Constantine had to accomplish great things, but they multiplied their talents a 100 fold, so now we have a man who at one time was the most powerful ruler on earth, and in the kingdom he will have no rewards, meaning he may be under any one of us.

If he's under me, I'm sure going to let him know how he blew it. Lol JH

[Iowegian]

Go back and read her post, she said:

True, Martin was a Catholic until he created his own religion...

"Religion", not church. Yes it is different, and I am just asking her to prove her assertion, which started a long discussion of Constantine.

[De Fide]

I'm sorry, but quoting Scripture verses without a context which helps you understand their intended meaning results in total chaos -- or 200,000-plus denominations and sects.

Once you realize that you must have a divinely-guided interpreter to escape from such a morass, you are ready for a fuller faith in God's providential plan.

God bless you.

[RobbyS]

If he's under me, I'm sure going to let him know how he blew it. Lol JH By then the whole world will know the whole story..about him and abiut me and you. Maybe we should drop the stones!

[jammer]

In addition, any mind that cannot make a distinction between "tenet" and "tenant" is not ready for prime time. At least not for me.

Or "cannon" and "canon". This is another illustration of the intellectual quality of people like this.

[The_Reader_David]

Are you capable of reading carefully? I pointed out in the same post that you criticize that the Orthodox, among whom by the grace of God I am numbered, have never taught the Latin doctrine of Purgatory. I am under no obligation as an Orthodox to try to justify on the basis of Holy Scripture any Latin heresy. Did you read the explanation I gave of the Orthodox Christian explanation of prayers for the dead? Notice: no "purgatory", no "purgatorial fire", no "plenary indulgences".

You are also simply wrong when you claim that the entire Old Testament as translated into Greek by the pre-Christian Jews of Alexandria was not the canonical scripture of the Church "until Trent". The Council of Trent is regarded by the Holy Orthodox Church as a conventicle of the Latin heretics and has no ecclesiological force for us, and yet, on the basis of the actions of local councils at Carthage and Laodicea, as confirmed by the Holy Ecumenical Councils of Chalcedon and Constantinople (4th and 6th), we have regarded the books in question (in particular with reference to prayer for the dead, the Books of First and Second Maccabees, which also contain the only explicit OT statement of the doctrine of the resurrection) as canonical ever since.

Trent merely restated for the Latins the canon which the Church had always held, and did so only out of necessity enforced by Luther's absolutization of the opinion of St. Jerome that the books not found in the Masorete were of lesser worth than those retained by the Jews. Neither St. Jerome nor Luther seem to have been aware that the Jewish canon was shortenned by anti-Christian rabbis at Jamnia in 90 A.D. Luther seem to have been under the misapprehension that the Masorete was an urtext, when in fact extant manuscripts of the Greek Old Testament, which include the complete Christian OT accepted by the Ecumenical Councils predate the earliest extant Hebrew text. In fact, all extant Hebrew OT's are redactions made by anti-Christian rabbis.

[JHavard]

Maybe we should drop the stones!

What part of my post did you consider to be a stone? JH

[Matchett-PI]

"Can any Catholic or non-Catholic disagree?"

All "Christians" are part of the universal (catholic-small "c") church.

It is UNScriptural (false teaching) to tell people that a "work" (such as baptism or circumcision) must be performed or a person cannot be saved.

You can read all about it especially in Romans and Galatians.

In light of the fact that the blackest darkness forever is reserved for those who teach a different Jesus and a different gospel (Jude 12-13). I would think people would fear to teach works + grace is REQUIRED for salvation.

False teachers lead people to "spiritual death", therefore theirs is the greater punishment.

Abortionists (for instance) only deal in "physical death".

[eastsider]

the point ... is: murder was murder then, just as it is now.

Murder was, and is, the killing of an innocent person. Killing another person is not per se murder -- it is only murder if the person killed is innocent. In the case of war, the person who is killed (the enemy) is not innocent -- he is an unjust aggressor. In the case of capital punishment, the person who is killed (the capital offender) is not innocent -- he has violated a just law of the state, and the state is justified in protecting itself from the offender.

Let's look at Constantine's killing of his son, Crispus. Wordsmith has provided the following factual datum from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

... Crispus was executed on the charge of immorality made against him by Constantine's second wife, Fausta. The charge was false, as Constantine learned from his mother, Helena, after the deed was done.

Constantine killed Crispus (either directly or by mandate), and Crispus was apparently innocent. Is that murder? Objectively and materially, yes -- Constantine killed an innocent man. Does that mean that Constantine is a murderer? If Constantine knew beforehand that Crispus was innocent but killed him anyway, he would be not only objectively a murderer but subjectively one as well. But if he didn't know that Crispus was innocent, he would only be a murderer objectively, not subjectively. It's the subjective part -- Constantine's intention when he killed his son Crispus and the circumstances that informed Constantine's decision -- that is debatable.