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.

The Jesus Seminar claims that the Gospels were "just made up." Since we don't know who, when, where or why they were written, they may be newer than other Christian writings that we have. The very idea of the New Testament is a result of later reflection on the value of certain documents. Someone had to "make up"-- the canon: to decide which writings were equal to the Scriptures that Jesus and the Apostles had at their disposal. Regarding Purgatory, you are putting too much strress on a doctrine that was but the departure point in the contraversy between Luther and Rome. The doctrine itself was not "made up" to make money for the Church, but arose naturally from the evident fact that most people are not saints or reprobates but people whose lives are worthy of both praise and blame.

Well, it is obvious that you are a typical catholic: ignorant of the Bible and your own "tradition", you refuse to comprehend clear, specific contradictions between your cult's man made "tradition" and the Bible and your response to such is unproveable generalities.

Here is what Christians call the Roman Road, bascially the Gods' plan of salvation, please read it until you comprehend it.

ROMANS 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

ROMANS 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

ROMANS 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

ROMANS 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

ROMANS 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

ROMANS 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
ROMANS 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
ROMANS 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
ROMANS 10:12 ¶ For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
ROMANS 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Well, Sir, it is obvious that you read your prejudices into everything you read, including the Catechism, and that if I or another other "typical Catholic" were to say, No, That is NOT what we believe,that is not what the words say, you sneer and say, "O yes, you do, because that is what I read and I am inspired by the Holy Ghost. No, I will go beyond this ans suggest that you have deluded yoursel into thinking that you, personally, have talked with the resurrected Jesus, like the Apostle Paul. Someone who like--for instance-- Krister Stendahl(no RC) who approaches the "Roman Road" without thinking that Paul was either a Lutheran Pietist or an American revivalist may reasonably conclude that this is a very selective reading of Paul. But than Stendahl did not have the advantage of having someone highlight this part of Scripture and assure him that only this construction is possible. Do you really believe this is Jesus? Could not some human voice have lead you alone this path?

Look I showed you the definitions for the words of what your catechism says about J2P2 and your college of cardinals being possessed, if you don't agree or like it DON'T WHINE at me, take it with the folks in rome.
Bottom line "Words mean what they mean", your little rant is just figuratively sticking your fingers in your ears because you're afraid of the truth.
Bye!

Webster's Unabridged won't help someone who can't make sense of the words when they are put together in a sentence and /or who thinks of himself as the infallible oracle of the Lord.

Don't shovel this baloney at me, I posted catechism 869 without comment and you threw a fit about it because you know what it clearly says.

869. "The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: 'the twelve APOSTLES of the Lamb' [Rev 21:14.]. She is indestructible (cf. Mt 16:18). She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other APOSTLES, who are PRESENT in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops."

And? Your point? Do you really think that we believe that John Paul II is possessed by the spirit of Peter? Then you are nuts.

Talk about baloney. It would be interesting to read what you think it means, since you seem to lack any understanding of what we mean by Church.

What does "PRESENT" mean?

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.