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??

[Havoc]

How do you propose the Church became Constantine's? How was he able to overcome the will of God?

One need not overcome the will of God in order to usurp a physical organization. Nor does one need to overcome the will of God to lead others astray.

If, as you propose, Constantine managed this, how do you propose that he was able to deceive all of the Christians of the day in to believing that the Church was still Christ's?

Hmmm. Did IQ's drop suddenly - state religion, forced conversion at sword point - do these things ring a bell?

[Havoc]

"Let no one do any of the things which concern the Church without the bishop...Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church."

Sorry, had to fix that for you. The Iggy text has that as Little 'c' and uses it as an adjective, not a proper noun. In that light, it would be more appropriate to use the word universal in it's place as a proper work of translation. If whoever it was that wrote that book had poured miracle grow on that 'c' you guys might have something. Eight out of 15 of the works the Catholic Church once said were from him have been proven frauds. The remaining 7 are still in question. So perhaps it would make sense to say, 'if only the Vatican forgery team had thought to pour miracle grow on that 'c'...' Sorry, couldn't let that pass. You can't establish the existance of the word as a Proper noun until much later. The isidorian Decretals were a huge false history that was erected to make catholicism appear to be something it wasn't - to give it rights to something it had no claim to. Not all of the lies have gone away. They serve the church too well..

[Wordsmith]

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.

Evidence?

[Wordsmith]

How do you propose the Church became Constantine's? How was he able to overcome the will of God?

One need not overcome the will of God in order to usurp a physical organization. Nor does one need to overcome the will of God to lead others astray.

If, as you propose, Constantine managed this, how do you propose that he was able to deceive all of the Christians of the day in to believing that the Church was still Christ's?

Hmmm. Did IQ's drop suddenly - state religion, forced conversion at sword point - do these things ring a bell?

One need not overcome the will of God in order to usurp a physical organization. So are you saying that you believe the Church is only a physical organization? As I questioned earlier, how does this fit with Christ's statement "...I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

Moving past your remarks about my IQ, I certainly realize that forced conversion is possible. One needn't look any further than modern Islamic states. But as was discussed earlier in this thread, where is the evidence that this happened under Constantine? The Church before and after Constantine is a seamless whole. The same Church leaders who maintained the Church before Constantine stopped the persecutions continued to support it afterwards. Thus my question earlier, if there was a mass forced conversion to a new faith, how was this covered up from such folks as Athanasius, who was certainly not one to shy away from conflict.

As I stated to Iowegian earlier, you seem to believe that either:

1 - That because Constantine was irredeemably sinful, and leader of the state, the Church during his time became irredeemably corrupt. And even if I grant the first premise, which I have no reason to, I just don't see how this leads to the second.

2 - That by being legitimized by the state, and accepted as the religion of the state, the Church necessarily became corrupted and broke from the teachings and traditions of the Apostles. Again, I don't see the evidence to support this claim. Are you saying that the Church cannot exist except in a state of persecution? How does this square with Christ's command to make disciples of all nations?

These last two questions seem to me to be the crux of the debate.

[Wordsmith]

Sources?

It seems that you are implying that I capitalized the "C" in "Catholic" out of a desire to identify the Church as referred to here by Ignatius as the Roman Catholic Church. I mean no such thing. As I've stated before, I am not Roman Catholic. I am Orthodox. I completely accept that in this statement the word means "universal" - it should never mean any thing else. I took the quote from an Orthodox source, and reproduced it verbatim. We often capitalize words that we consider very important as a sign of reverence. I didn't mean to imply that I meant it as an identifier of a particular visible entity. In some of my other posts on this thread, I more directly expressed my beliefs about what the Church is.

Speaking of capitalization and the Church, though, what is your perspective on the Nicene Creed? As an Orthodox Christian, I consider this the most powerful summation of Christian faith available. It would be helpful to me to know which of the beliefs expressed in it you disagree with. If there are none, then certainly we have much common ground.

The Nicene Creed

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds; Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made;

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets;

And I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

I look for the Resurrection of the dead.

And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

- A Pocket Prayer Book for Orthodox Christians

[saradippity]

When you attack the Church using men who may or may not have been evil,for example, Constantine or Isador Mercator of the False Decretals, does the Biblical passage that states "all things work together for good for those who love God" ever come to mind?

[Wordsmith]

Well said...

[SoothingDave]

Evidence?

You obviously don't know Havoc. He doesn't need evidence. What he speaks is the Word of God.

SD

[Wordsmith]

Oh, I see. I haven't come across his posts before, and am still fairly new here. Until given direct reason to think otherwise, I try to assume that everyone is interested in a calm, rational pursuit of truth. We need both our hearts and our heads clear as possible in moving towards God. Sloppy thinking has no more of a place in religious debate than it does in political debate.

[ThomasMore]

The first and second centuries still have a purity of doctrine with which both sides can agree.

This is a beautiful common ground starting point. The Letters from Ignatius of Antioch are excellant. Lets view them individually and discuss their content.

[ThomasMore]

Ignoring the fact that the books in question didn't have full canonical status until after Trent

Can't be ignored. They HAD full canonical status. Or are you saying that it took a RC council (Trent) to infallibly define the canon?

The councils of Hippo and Carthage, AD 393, 397 and 419 all contributed to the accepted canonical books. And 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, Tobit, and Judith were included!

[Dataman]

The Letters from Ignatius of Antioch are excellant. Lets view them individually and discuss their content.

Ignatius on the episcopate? On the deity of Christ? On celibacy? On the humantiy of Christ?

[SoothingDave]

Can't be ignored. They HAD full canonical status.

One need only look at the testimony of The_Reader_David about the acceptance of the full OT canon. The Orthodox had broken away (or vice versa) long before Trent. If they were not accepted as inspired works until then, the Orthodox would not have them. To suggest that the Orthodox were following the Western Church's actions at Trent 500 years after the schism is to make Newman once again a prophet.

SD

[Wordsmith]

Wonderful idea. I'd love to participate. Also, it would be great to discuss Athanasius. During Constantine's era, which is apparently considered by many Protestants and Evangelicals the time during which the Church slid into untruth, his contribution was immense. "On the Incarnation" is short enough that each chapter could be posted in full, and there are only 5 chapters. Perhaps a thread each? I don't know enough about Freeper protocol to know how to "invite" interested folks to participate in such a dialogue, but I'm sure the Orthodox bump list would yield a number of interested participants.

[dadwags]

#30
"Due to the fact that the RCC was persecuting anyone who dared to HAVE a Bible?
Please, Homeschool, I've told you a MILLION times --don't exaggerate !
Just who was preserving the Bible, making copies by hand up until the printing press was invented in 15 hundred something ? The Monks in the Monastaries of the RCC . That's who .
Another bit if historical trivia--The "chained Bibles in old European Churches . They were chained to lecterns so that anyone who could read would have access to them . They were chained to reduce the temptation to steal them .
If the RCC had custody of the N.T. Scriptures during all those hundreds of years before printing, wouldn't that be an opportunity to revise as desired ?
Also, interpretation of older expressions can be tricky . For example, 60 years ago, a young man could drag to a dance and have a very gay time . that meant that a hetero-sexual man escorted a young lady to a dance and they enjoyed the party .
Today, some might interpret that as saying that a homosexual man dressed up as a woman and went to a homosexual event .
Notice the way even english changes over time .

[american colleen]

Thanks for posting the Nicene Creed, I love that prayer.

I believe the Nicene Creed was believed by ALL Christians in the mid 300s to clarify the universal Church?

Well, everyone must have believed the Virgin Mary was a Virgin, right? It says it right there in the exact words that we have recited and believed in for 1700 years.

So when did the Virgin Mary become a non-Virgin? And who first promulgated the non-virgin belief?

[Wordsmith]

As I understand matters, the Nicene Creed was formulated precisely to serve as a universal declaration of essential doctrine for the whole Church. The council that began its formulation, the first council of Nicea, aimed to specifically condemn Arianism - thus the importance of declaring Christ to be God. The unrepentent Arians, never more than a tiny fraction of Christendom, would have never accepted Nicea or the Creed.

And it sounds from this thread like there are Protestant and Evangelical Freepers who don't believe that there even was a recognizable Church in the 4th century - the proposition seems to be that the Church as unified, recognizable entity either never existed, ended with the death of the Apostles, or ended with the legalization of Christianity under Constantine.

I've never thought about the fact that the Creed refers to the Theotokos as "the Virgin Mary." I'm not sure of the subtleties behind this, but certainly it seems like you are right and that this is a great piece of Holy Tradition to point to when challenged by folks who believe that the belief in her perpetual virginity was not widely accepted very early in the Church's existence.

Of course, I'm sure that since we debate with them the meaning of the word "until" they would debate with us the meaning of the words "begotten" and "Virgin." I think they'd claim that the Creed here is only telling us that she was Virgin when Christ was born, bedded old Joseph soon afterward, and that it is only an accident of history that she was referred to as "the Virgin Mary!"

[american colleen]

You forgot the debate regarding the meaning of "is" ... :-)

I think I posted this response actually on the wrong thread (you know the other one!) - but the "Virgin Mary" got my attention. I'm going to check around, but as far as I know, nothing (no words)in the Nicene Creed have changed since 340ish.

Talk to you later!

[Wordsmith]

Yeah, I've noticed but been avoiding the thread on the perpetual virginity of Mary. I wanted to avoid getting sucked in to more debate! Maybe you should post the Nicene Creed over there and highlight "Virgin Mary" just to stir things up!

As far as I know, the only language change in the Nicene Creed since the 4th century is the one that is so critical to the debates between Orthodox and Roman Catholics - the addition of the so-called filoque (sp?) The Creed as I quoted it says the Holy Spirit "proceedeth from the Father." I believe the Roman Catholic version of the Nicene Creed says "from the Father and the Son," which leads to what the Orthodox consider "dual-procession" doctrine and a diminishment of the Holy Spirit.

[Wordsmith]

Yikes, I just took a look at that thread. No way I'm going over there! Too hot for my tastes at the moment, and it looks like The_Reader_David is doing fine at upholding the Orthodox point of view.

Christ Bless!