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.

I would expect God to be consistent. Over the years though, it appears that He has given his people a variety of different commandments. In Old Testament times, for example, circumcision was required. In New Testament times, it became optional. Did God change his mind, or is there something more to understand here?

More to it than that. Circumcision was commanded so that it would serve as a token and a reminder of the covenants God made with the people of Isreal. Christ came and the covenant to send a Redeemer was fulfilled, hence the token and reminder became unnessesary. The new covenant of the gospel had the sacrament to serve as a token and reminder of a Christian's covenant to follow Christ. Principles (God makes covenants with his people) stay the same, how they are put into practice depends on the circumstances.

In modern times, Christianity has evolved from the ultra-strict to the very permissive, and it has left a wide range of doctrines and denominations in its path. Perhaps in some cases, it is the people, not God, who have changed.

Absolutly, and I often cite this 'evolution' as evidence that there was an apostacy.

>>>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?

Its an interesting question. I think you make some unwarranted assumptions, and perhaps you could explain them. Why does it appear to be a robber baron's church?

As to the poverty of Christ's life, I would refer to a couple things. If you recall the annointing of His feet with the precious oil, several objected to that as a waste of money. But we could feed the poor with that, they said. He allowed it though, even encouraged it as an act of merit, yes? How does this relate to building a grand Cathedral or Church? In our view, since we believe the Eucharist at Mass is really and truly His Body, and it is kept in our Tabernacles in the Cathedrals and Churches, His Body deserves to be housed in the best we can house it in. It is a sign of our respect to Him.

Its also worth reading about how the Jews were instructed to annoint their early chief priests and to build their temple. Rather ornate and elaborate, etc.

A lot of Catholic haters claim we are so terribly rich as a Church. They say we own all this land, etc. What they ignore is that most of this land is in Churches, Hospitals, cemetaries, things like that. Its not exactly billions in gold sitting in banks. Anyway, I don't know if I have precisely answered your question. Feel free to reask if not.

patent

"The Catholic Church does NOT teach that by not performing an "action" [work] 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.)

The Creator may obviously save anyone not able to take these "ordinary means of grace" in any way He wills."

Read your own words above: "THE MEANS OF SALVATION". Your caveat about how God can do as he pleases (apparently meaning that He can save someone a different way --- other than by "the means of" water baptism --- if he wants to) is big of you [and Rome].

The fact is that Rome teaches falsely that water baptism is necessary for salvation, and that THE ACT [work] of being baptised with water itself causes regeneration. Rome teaches that water baptism is a means whereby "the church" bestows saving grace on people. Rome falsely teaches that people are spiritually reborn through the act [work] of being baptised with water.

You wrote: The sacraments are not "our" actions, they are God's actions.

In other words: "Being baptised with water is not a work we perform, it is a work God performs."

In other words: "Being circumcised is not "our" actions that we perform in order to be acceptable to God, it is God's actions."

If water baptism and participating in the other sacraments are necessary for salvation BECAUSE they are necessary for receiving saving grace, then salvation really is based on faith + works.

Paul's response to the legalists in Galatia who "required" a work + faith would be the same to legalists today: "You are teaching a different gospel" [Gal.1:6]. He would say, "all who rely on works of the law are under a curse" [Gal.3:10]. He would denounce those who would attempt to add any form of obedience as a requirement for justification, and say: "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law -- you have fallen away from grace" [Gal.5:4].

The world is FULL of such "man-centered" religions.

The "Christian" religion, however, is God-centered. Salvation is a free gift of the Sovereign God and depends upon faith alone --- and it's not even your own faith, it is God's own faith given as a free gift to his elect. Eph.2:8-9; Rom.6:23]

To those professing Christian "teachers" [spiritual murderers] who teach a different God and a different gospel [darkness for light], the Sovereign Creator God has reserved the blackest darkness forever. Jude:12-13

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?

Right you are. There are even gay (though unrecognized) CC's. NA RCC's differ significantly from SA RCC's which tend to accommodate the pagan cultures they conquered. The Pope himself has criticized American Catholocism which means it is different enough from Vatican Catholocism to warrant such. The RCC is not exempt from the human foibles manifested in Protestant churches any more than the NT church was.

This is very true, but you know the FR RC's won't claim a lot of those people,

It is an interesting question that is difficult to answer. Patent had a good response. Jesus himself said that foxes have holes but he had nowhere to lay his head. Perhaps we shouldn't build any church at all and go back to meeting in synagogues.

It is very probable-- indeed likely-- that Jesus and the Apostles had a patron, a rich person or persons that used their wealth to support them. When Jesus cleansed the temple, he did not mention the wealth of the temple either time. The wealth was so great, that when Titus carried it off in 70 AD the world-wide price of gold dropped to half. Even today, it is estimated that there is so much gold in the lost tomb of David that if it were to be discovered, war would break out instantly with countries that thought they deserved it.

What is wealth to God? Does he need it? For what purpose(s) should it be used? It should be used to please Him.

I learn fast.

After only one tour of duty on the frontlines of Cat-Prot Freeperland, I am turning in my flack-jacket.

Discussion is impossible. If I say, "A", and you say, "Not-A", that's the end of the line. Black is White and White is Black. It is evidently impossible to carry out these discussions in a forum such as this.

I do think everyone would do better to practice more charity and kindness; the viciousness of some of the responses I get and which I see is shocking. And I don't want to be led down that road either.

Of course, since you really believe I am an Agent of Satan, I guess you really should spit and claw at me and other Catholics.

May God bless you, and may the Virgin Mary intercede before God's throne for your conversions.

Signed,

Your friendly neighborhood "spiritual murderer" and "teacher of darkness."

I should have mentioned in my post to patent that I am equally as disgusted by ostentatious Protestant churches. Meant to go back and do that, but got sidetracked and then forgot about even posting that question to patent. Boy, I hate getting old and not being able to remember anything! LOL!

What is wealth to God? Does he need it? Since all things belong to and come from God, I would say no He doesn't need it. And that it probably doesn't mean much to Him. IMHO, the only wealth God is interested in is the wealth of our souls for Him.

For what purpose(s) should it be used? It should be used to please Him.

I agree. I just don't believe that the Vatican with billions of dollars of priceless art, churches with stained windows worth thousands of dollars, etc. necessairly please Him. I think what would please Him is if a church took the money for one of those stained glass windows and helped a family who had no food or clothes or roof over their heads.

I have gone to many churches but I have only been in two churches where the pastor said "Folks, we have a family in our congregation that is really struggling right now. They need help. They need food, they need assistance paying their electric/medical/water bills. Please help them if you are moved to do so." Heard plenty of pastors say "We're building a new youth center, new pews, new choir robes, new stained glass windows, etc". If a church spends money on new choir robes rather than helping one in their congregation that is in need, I don't think that pleases God a bit.

I have a girlfriend with an 8 year old son that has fallen on hard times. She needs help desperately. It is a very small town and everyone in her church and the other two churches in town knows that she is on the brink of disaster, yet only three people have lifted a finger to help her. But her church just bought several new stained glass windows. Somenew pews too, I think. Is God pleased with that? I doubt it.

That is what gripes me to no end. These big, fancy churches that have in their congregations people that need help, but don't get it because a stained glass window or whatever is more important. Esp. the Catholic Church because it is so wealthy and so many Catholics are dirt poor.

Right. We could with as much veracity simply lump all Christian denominations together, call them "Protestantism," say its organization is not to have an organization, pronounce it as an indissoluble unity (by fiat, as RCs do), say its creed is the Bible (which it surely is — as surely as the Kennedys and O'Connors and Kungs affirm everything in every RC dogma and dictum), declare victory, and move on.

It all amounts to the same thing it has since Eden, since Babel, since the monarchists in Saul's day: people think they have a better idea than God. Always. So the RC concludes that God has clearly made a massive and tremendous mistake in speaking His word directly to His children, and in consituting local churches as being autonomous and free, so he sets about to "fix God's mistakes." And, as a giraffe (or platypus?) has been dubbed an animal designed by a committee, so we have the RCC, as far from the Biblical model as one can find oneself while still maintaining some formal similarities.

Good call.

Dan
What Is Biblical Christianity?

Well, you've touched a nerve with me. I am neither a great fan nor admirer of "mega-churches," and when I was a pastor I never wanted to lead one. (In fact, I always held out the number 217 as being the desidiratum!)

But I can't say that Scripture eo ipso condemns a church of any size. I've never found a minimum, nor a maximum.

So my too-brief answer is: it all depends on what a church does with its size. Charles Spurgeon in 19th-century England pastored a large church, and he preached wonderful, pure, Christ-centered, God-honoring sermons. They used their size to maintain orphanages, schools for ministers, and do many other works of mercy. Can I say his was "too big"? "Too big for me," probably yes; too big for Spurgeon? Can't say it was.

But modern mega's too often BECOME large BY watering down their teaching, BY compromising on Biblical teaching, BY putting the Cross in the background, BY soft-pedaling actual person to person ministry. And that's not good!

Dan

Which appears to be the "Robber Baron Church in Dallas?The Catholic Church with its rather modest Cathedral, or the First Baptist Church, which owns half of downtown? Just asking!

Can't answer that because I stay as far away from Dallas (and any other large city) I can, so I haven't seen either.

As I said in my post to Dataman, I am equally disgusted by huge, fancy Protestant churches as I am Catholic churches. Big churchs don't bother me if they are big because the congregations are big, it's just all that extra stuff they don't really need that I find offensive. The money would be much better spent on helping those in the church and community than on a stained glass window, fancy pews, etc.

< We could with as much veracity simply lump all Christian denominations together, call them "Protestantism," say its organization is not to have an organization, pronounce it as an indissoluble unity (by fiat, as RCs do), say its creed is the Bible (which it surely is ? as surely as the Kennedys and O'Connors and Kungs affirm everything in every RC dogma and dictum), declare victory, and move on.

BTW, I have a book published in 1881 by the Benziger Bros that blames everything from soup to nuts on the Protestants. It accused Luther and Calvin of reviving Pelagiansim, inventing Unitarianism, nurturing Deism, inspiring Voltaire & Rousseau, causing the French Revolution and making Napoleon possible. If the book were written later I'm sure WWI and WWII would have been our fault as well. I am fairly sure there will never be a meeting of the minds between the two unless it's against the Antichrist.

I don't know why you would think I sanction murder. I did point out that I am not sure how I feel about Constantine. He did good and he did bad.

But he wasn't Christian. Let's face it, The RCC puts all this importance on being baptised in water. Water baptism is not the same as being born again - it is an act of obedience and public profession; but that is all. Catholic apologists say he wasn't baptized till just before he died, but that he was baptized. Too bad they neglect to mention that he was well prepared and had his body put through pagan rites after death that were intended to make him a god. I guess that the only things worth saying are the things that present the man in the best light for the apologists? That's ok. All the Catholic propaganda violently erupts into flame and vapor when the sunlight hits 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.