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]

Thanks for the information.

[eastsider]

Glad to help, brother. : )

[RobbyS]

Maybe Constantine will be above us.

[Wordsmith]

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.

You ask, "Who is it?" And I answer, "the Orthodox Church."

My faith teaches me that the Orthodox Church alone has fully preserved, fully is, the living Church of the Apostles through continuous succession and strict adherence to right worship and doctrine. My faith also teaches me that the Church was essentially one except for minor breakaways for a 1000 years, until the great Schism of 1054 when - from our perspective - the Roman Catholic Church broke away. And thus it is our belief that while we have some common ground with the Roman Church, they and the Protestant denominations that split off from them are all faulty and lack the fullness of the faith.

But as I stated at one point, that doesn't mean that those who are not part of the visible Orthodox communion are not saved or are not Christians. I understand that this kind of belief on my part could be a real conversation-stopper, so I'm glad we were able to have such a good exchange before getting to this point.

I'm also glad that we are able to agree on a basic understanding of how to identify the Church. I don't have much experience speaking about the faith with non-Orthodox. And I hoped to reach a point where we could find some common ground. Glad to have done so, and I appreciate your efforts to communicate your beliefs.

Christ Bless.

[Iowegian]

Thanks for your honest answer. Even though I disagree with you I like the fact that you are not at all ashamed of what you believe. I believe that "the church" is made up of the true, regenerated believers in Christ from all denominations of Christianity. The church is people, not an eathly organization, but a kingdom of heaven. Of course, some denominations have more members than others IMO, but a true believe in Christ's death for us is the key, not what kind of church we go to. Just my opinion.

[eastsider]

Thank you for your contributions to this thread. You are both a reasonable and gentle man.

Concerning the Great Schism, it is my personal conviction that the Orthodox and the Catholics are still one Church in the Eucharist; that the doctrinal differences (e.g., Original Sin, Purgatory, etc.) amount to little more than different articulations of the one truth we both share; and that, with God's help and fraternal charity on both our parts, the structural differences will eventually be resolved.

Peace of X, brother, and have a great Saturday evening!

[BibChr]

I'll tell God you hate His way of doing things, and feel you have a better plan. (But I already know what He's going to say — because He already said it!)

Dan

[De Fide]

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

This is an easy misconception to form about the Church. The Catholic Church does NOT teach that by not performing an "action" (I imagine you mean a "sacrament" of salvation, especially baptism) a person absolutely "cannot be saved."

In reality, the Church simply teaches that if we can, AND we know we should, then we MUST avail ourselves of the means of salvation Christ has given us, especially baptism. (Otherwise we are guilty of negligence.)

Christ's sacraments are the "ordinary" means of receiving sanctifying grace. God Himself is not bound by His sacraments; they are His gift to us. The Creator may obviously save anyone not able to take these "ordinary means of grace" in any way He wills.

God bless you.

P.S. The sacraments are not "our" actions, they are God's actions. He works through the minister of the sacrament, who is His instrument. (In the case of Holy Matrimony, that is the couple themselves.)

[Some hope remaining.]

Well it has been interesting to see the different perspectives of Constantine. I'm kind of sorry I asked the question as it touched off a whole new round of Catholic bashing, which was not my intention. I did want to know how historical that particular account was, though.

[De Fide]

Dear Dan,

This is so sad: A discussion cannot even really get off the ground between you and me, or between almost any Protestant and Catholic on this board.

Do you know why?

Because we no longer speak the same language. The Catholic Faith and teachings, and the Church's understanding of Scripture are known to everyone willing to research them. Catholics essentially speak the same doctrinal "language".

Unfortunately, Protestants now speak 200,000-plus dialects of "Scripturese", and each individual has his own distinct accent.

Among the many other things she is, the Church is God's undoing of the disaster of the Tower of Babel.

God bless you.

[Iowegian]

Unfortunately, Protestants now speak 200,000-plus dialects of "Scripturese"...

Garbage. Prove it, name them or stop. Last I heard from the RC's it was a few thousand and that was a ridiculously wrong (inflated) number.

[Iowegian]

Catholic bashing.

Could you give us some examples of what you would call Catholic bashing since you posted that information?

[De Fide]

Garbage. Prove it, name them or stop. Last I heard from the RC's it was a few thousand and that was a ridiculously wrong (inflated) number.

OK, you're right, I don't have time to find a real reference. Let's just look in the phone book, shall we, under "Churches"?

God bless you.

[BibChr]

That, AND all this blather as if the RCC is one seamless garment. So which RCC are we talking about? The RCC of de fide, of Ted Kennedy, of Joe Biden, of Pope John Paul George, of William F. Buckley, of the communist Bishops' counsels, of Hans Kung, of Sinead O'Connor, of Alan Keyes, of Rudy Giuliani? Which one?

Dan

[BibChr]

You're right in your observation, wrong in your analysis.

One one level it is because Christianity, Biblically defined, and Roman Catholicism are two different religions.

On another level, it is because a committed accept-it-all Roman Catholic can only look at the freedom a child of God has in Christ and hate him for it (cf. Galatians 4:29-31, etc.).

Dan

[Iowegian]

Let's just look in the phone book, shall we, under "Churches"?

OK fine, this is a reasonable way to find out a number. I live in a reasonable large city area (400,000 people), with just about every denomination that is imaginable and I count 51 (not counting the RC's). These same groups meet all over the country and all over the world. Even among these 51 many of them are basically the same, but choose to organize seperately for their own reasons. Would you like to revise your number from 200,000 to a reasonable number, like in the low hundreds?

[Iowegian]

The RCC of de fide, of Ted Kennedy, of Joe Biden, of Pope John Paul George, of William F. Buckley, of the communist Bishops' counsels, of Hans Kung, of Sinead O'Connor, of Alan Keyes, of Rudy Giuliani? Which one?

This is very true, but you know the FR RC's won't claim a lot of those people, but I'll betcha their church takes the money of all of those people and refuses to excommunicate any of them regardless of what the really believe as their "faith".

[american colleen]

http://www.ywam.org/books/wce.htm

Save $59.00 (published late Dec 2000) WORLD CHRISTIAN ENCYCLOPEDIA The new (second) edition of the classic survey of the world's largest religion

Essential resource for every mission and church office, and every Christian school and library. New in two volumes. Completely revised, updated, expanded to chart the Christian world at the dawn of a new millennium.

an encyclopedia a dictionary an atlas a directory ... and the definitive statistical handbook on Christianity past, present and future An unparalleled source of Information

A global, regional, and national census of two billion Christians in 238 countries Detailed data on 33,800 Christian denominations, 3,445,000 churches or assemblies, 12,000 dioceses, 29,500 councils, alliances, or fellowships, and 200,000 other organizations. Index of 15,000 Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religious organizations around the world. Religious, linguistic, and other data on 12,600 distinct ethnoreligious groups. Miniprofiles of the 270 largest world religions. Classification of 13,000 languages and dialects. The 470 names for God in 910 languages. Glossary of 480 key terms for analyzing global Christianity.

And they all think they are correct.

[De Fide]

....and now, at long last, the conversation may end....

Bravo!

May God bless and keep you.

[TexanaRED]

you must accept it with humility.

Speaking of humility, I have a question for Catholics.

Christ lived a life of humility. He was, what I believe we today, poor (as in material things - not spiritual things). He was not ostentatious, showy, flashy. He quietly went about touching the lives of sinners. He had no store of wealth, priceless art, etc.

Does not the RCC stand in vast opposition and conflict to the life of Christ? If the RCC is the true church, why does it appear to be a robber baron's church? If the RCC is the one true church, why does it not follow the example set by the Savior?

I do not know what the RCC teaches other than what I have read on these threads. It is not my place to determine if Catholics are "saved" or not. Do not take this as Catholic bashing. It is simply a question.