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??

[american colleen]

You are trying to get me in trouble! I am not posting the Nicene Creed in order to incite insurrection! (Plus I'm in work and can't devote the mental sharpness I know I'll need if I do that).

Interesting in the difference of a few words with the Orthodox and RC Nicene.

[Iowegian]

Well, everyone must have believed the Virgin Mary was a Virgin, right?

Yes, Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born, that is an awesome and miraculous work of God. No one else in history besides our Lord was born of a virgin.

It says it right there in the exact words that we have recited and believed in for 1700 years.

OK, I'm with you so far, but something tells me that a virgin birth isn't enough of a miracle for you, you want to add more (that is not in Scripture), right?

So when did the Virgin Mary become a non-Virgin?

That's easy, same as everone else. When she had intercourse with her husband Joseph.

And who first promulgated the non-virgin belief?

A non-virgin belief would be as some liberals (who are not really Christians IMO) who don't believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.

[Iowegian]

Context, it's very important to understanding the written word, right? In fact, very important. Now let's have look at one section of the Nicene creed, the one that you are both so fasinated with:

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;

Now who is this about? Clearly, in context, it is about our Lord Jesus. And more specifically how he came to earth, His Incarnation and birth. Within context, for many centuries those believers who spoke it understood it to mean that Jesus was born through the miracle of the virgin birth via the Holy Spirit. That's what it says and that's what it means. Any attempt to put anything else into it comes clearly from the reader's imagination and is a dangerous and unorthodox opinion. Many do the same with Holy Scripture, that is where the Perpetual Virginity came from, not Scripture, but imagination and "Tradition". But honest RC's admit that it is a relatively new belief. So what kind of "tradition" is this, unbiblical and unnecessary. The creed is about Jesus, not Mary. Christianity is about Jesus, not Mary, although many like to change it to Maryanity, which God does not endorse in His word.

[De Fide]

whatever...

[SoothingDave]

Now who is this about? Clearly, in context, it is about our Lord Jesus. And more specifically how he came to earth, His Incarnation and birth.

You mean like Matthew 1:25 is about Jesus and how he came to earth, His Incarnation and birth? And how it's not making a statement about Mary?

SD

[Unbeliever]

EXODUS 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:
EXODUS 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

[1stFreedom]

>>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, ...

The RCC is seamless. It's people aren't. If one looks throughout history, especially at councils, one will find plenty of disagreement within the RCC. What really matters though, is what is the official teaching & doctrine. Every priest has their own agenda (good or bad) and you can find two that will tell you slightly or vastly different things about an item of faith. Go to the Cathecism for the true teaching.

[Proud2BAmerican]

But honest RC's admit that it is a relatively new belief.

----

Baloney. St. Jerome believed it, and totally demolished Helvidius who maintained a flawed concept of Christianity just as you do, having in common your mistaken belief that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage (which is obviously not true, supported by Scripture, and by the witness of the early Church Fathers).

[Iowegian]

Thanks for proving my point.

[RobbyS]

What do you put so much stress on this portion of the Law but repudiate other parts? Perhaps you also keep the Sabbath?

[RobbyS]

So what kind of "tradition" is this, unbiblical and unnecessary. The elevation of Jesus and Mary go together. Has it ever occured to you that those who deny Mary the title of Theotokos tend to deny divinity to Jesus? Hence its necessity. Every honor given to Mary stems from belief in the historicity of the Virgin Birth. Hence its "biblicality." Furthermore, far from regarding Mary as an unearthly being, we regard her as our Mother. The notion of her as "Second Eve" indicates that she shares our humanity and our need for redemption.

[Proud2BAmerican]

St. Jerome is relatively new? Wow. You are a freakin geezer.

[pxaus1]

No apostasy in the sense of the disappearance through corruption of the visible identifiable Church is possible, except in the last days.

Firstly, God does not deceive nor does the Mystical Body of God his Church. Secondly, the 'thousand year' reign of Christ - meaning forever because he shall reign over the House of Jacob and his kingdom shall have no end - this everlasting Kingdom of God began with his resurrection. Moreover, he promised he would be with us all days even until the end of time.

The Church has always applied the wisdom which the Holy Spirit gave it, being "guided into all truth" (John 16:31) such that "the Church of the living God" (not the Bible) is "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and "he who rejects you (ie the leaders of the Church) rejects me" (Luke 10:16).

The Church leaders (in the Greek: 'episcopi' - or area over-seers - which became the word 'bishop') did in fact decide which among the hundreds of texts reporting the life of Jesus would become the Gospels plus the rest of the written part of the Christian tradition.

All this is documented and on record, for those who have eyes to see, and the brains to pick up on. Then again, it is not a matter of intellect but will. The last thing most human beings want to do is bow. Hey Adam? Right Lucifer?

The real Church has a documented history that traces back without a single break to its birth on Pentecost Sunday. Every other counterfeit is from, well, you know whom...

The history of the authoritative and indisputable decision-making process that created the Bible as we know it is given in Henry Graham's Where We Got The Bible available from http://www.tanbooks.com/framesets/titles.htm.

[Unbeliever]

God thoroughly condemned idolatry throughout both the Old and New Testaments.

I PETER 4:3 For the time past of [our] life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

Even Peter who catholics claim was the first pope warns against idolatry. Why does rome continue the practice?

[Iowegian]

Jerome is not the RC church, just one man. The question is, when did the dogma become dogma?

[Iowegian]

The elevation of Jesus and Mary go together.

Only to those who don't have a true high regard for Scripture and the nature of God. Your "second Eve" argument is laughable, and a complete 100% fabrication.

[Jim Robinson]

Here 'tis. You may need to do a page reload or refresh to see it. Jim

[RobbyS]

Idolotry is the worship of false Gods. You identify this with the making of images, even images of Christ. Even Jews did not refrain entirely from the making of images, and the early Christians decorated tombs with religious images, even images of Christ. Only Christians who were trying to justify themselves to Jews or ,like the Emperor Leo the Isaurian, to Muslims) would worry about images in churches.

[RobbyS]

You avoid the main point. If Jesus is God, then his mother is a very special person. Remember that she is charged not only with giving him birth but with rearing him. Have you ever wondered how much was revealed to her, how much she shared with Joseph? Could all the wonderous things that happened have occured and they not have regarded him with awe? He who was nonetheless by all appearances an ordinary infant, child and man? And why do you laugh about her being a Second Eve? Irenaeus, who first used the image about the year 180, read from the same scripture as you and found it appropriate. Who are you to gainsay him? Could it not simply be that HE was not fighting the fight of the Protestant Reformers?

[B-Chan]

Re: #66 -- LOL!