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??

[LostTribe]

>By the end of the first century the only apostolic procession was by these grievous wolves. We must look to the scriptures themselves, not the church tradition laid by grievous wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Excellent.

[MissAmericanPie]

So are you asking me if God is too weak and inept to communicate His word to me? Or are you telling me that God is too weak and inept to communicate His word to me using fallible mankind? Oh ye of little faith.

The Old Testatment and the New, both show in much detail how God operated through personalities, some that even wanted to be far away from God, and some who wanted to sell God's gift of prophecy for money.

I think it should be understood that God in giving examples of performing His work through some humans, of unsavory character, was able to get what He wanted done. He would have no problem whatsoever in using unsavory men to put together the Bible into a letter to mankind. Hope this helps your understanding and lightens your heart over being able to trust God's letter to you.

[1stFreedom]

>>The JW are much more akin to a 20th Century cult than any religion I know. Just spend some time at their Brooklyn Heights World HQ. It is like stepping into the Stepford Wives. Actually, what motivated me to write this article is that a fellow co-worker is a JW and has approached me.

>>This tactic of defining your position as the only reasonable one is, in my experience, used by college sophomores who are trying to learn how to think and the far left..

I do not define it as the only conclusion. For instance, one could argue that "true, the Church wasn't in error THEN, but in 550ad it did fade into apostasy."

Also, when I mean is that a reasonable person won't resort to the "WORD OF GOD" circular argument, but rather at least consider my position. Resorting to the "WORD OF GOD" and the "SPIRIT CONFIRMS IT [the canon]" to me argument is not a reasonable position to hold when trying to convince another. You can't reason with someone once they resort to this argument

>>If you want to join the anti-Catholic league I suggest that you learn to get a little deeper in your own thinking.

Uh, I'm a Catholic my friend.

[Romulus]

When you come to believe that Scripture is complete, self-authenticating, and self-interpreting, it's no longer your guide, but your god.

The apostolic faith provides the believer with direct and intimate access to God. It's a mystery to me why anyone would swap this for an arm's-length intermediary.

[LibertyGirl77]

Tenant? Should be tenet?

[LibertyGirl77]

"Achilles heal" should be "Achilles heel." Spell check *cannot* replace a good dictionary.

[hchutch]

FYI

[Delbert]

Thank you sir, most appreciated.

[BibChr]

Nice try. If you say a brick is a burger, will you be able to eat it? Or maybe if the Pope says so?

Dan

[Romulus]

What if Jesus says it?

[BibChr]

To me it would make all the difference in the world.

To a Roman Catholic, it would mean nothing — until some man told him what he was required to believe that it meant.

Dan

[wtc911]

Choose your words carefully if you don't want to be misunderstood. You did state that the conclusion reached in the article, an article based on unsupported arguments, is "inescapable".

Some of the most vociferous Catholic bashers claim to be themselves Catholic...kind of like that expression "self-hating Jew". But, I'll take your word for it that your intentions are good.

[ThomasMore]

>By the end of the first century the only apostolic procession was by these grievous wolves. We must look to the scriptures themselves, not the church tradition laid by grievous wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Excellent.

With that said...please explain how you know that Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark?!

[1stFreedom]

>>So are you asking me if God is too weak and inept to communicate His word to me? Or are you telling me that God is too weak and inept to communicate His word to me using fallible mankind? Oh ye of little faith. I'm doing neither. Those are YOUR words, not mine. God could have chose to do plenty of things, but in not doing so in no way diminishes His Majesty.

My point is how can you trust the canon? It's too easy to say the Spirit Confirmed it. The "spirit" confirms many things -- and often times the "spirit" is the conscience of one's own beliefs and ideas, not the Holy Spirit. (I can't say whether or not the Spirit has actually confirmed it too you, and you can't convince [most] people that It has either. You can only convince/believe yourself, and only you and God know the truth.)

>>I think it should be understood that God in giving examples of performing His work through some humans, of unsavory character, was able to get what He wanted done.

I'm not debating that. And it's not the same argument. God didn't exactly use unsavory characters to define His scriptures. Unsavory characters were used, such as Pilot and Judas. But the Church isn't an unsavory character (although many of it's members are).

The unsavory Characters that God entrusted had repented and walked a new path. You could trust them, but would you trust Judas or Pilot, both used by God? An argument could be made from your statement that the [apostate] Church could be trusted here and there, but was basically untrustworthy as a whole.

>>He would have no problem whatsoever in using unsavory men to put together the Bible into a letter to mankind.

I would suspect that some of then men who participated in the recognition of the canon were in fact unsavory. The men themselves aren't the issue. The state of the Church is the issue here. And I don't think anyone can argue that the early Church was an unsavory character.

[Askel5]

I pray for the HEAL OF AN APOSTASY ... =)

Just teasing you as I mark this for follow-up. Should be entertaining if the opening volleys are any indication.

[ThomasMore]

RCC defined the same canon it set at Trent in 393, 397 and 419 AD. Long before the Waldensians...

[Delbert]

your earlier response to me , led me to a most interesting resource , thank you very much!!!!
If you read my profile at any time you will find that this was of great interest to me.
http://www.qtm.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm