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??

[1stFreedom]

From my understanding, the RC canon was set in the late 390s

A Waldensian canon, at earliest, is centruries later

Understand that Trent basically was the "official" seal of approval on the canon. But all along it was the offical canon of the Church. It just needed reemphasizing for those who questioned the canon. This is a common practice of the Church: explicit, "seal of approval", formal declrations are *usually* reserved to squash serious disputes, not to reaffirm what is ALREADY accepted and believed. Trent was not *when* the Church accepted the canon, it was only a *affirmation*.

[1stFreedom]

Darn it. I changed that error yesterday but this article was deleted by one of the FR higherups! I forgot to change it again before I reposted it off of my uncorrected version on my hard drive.

Thanks, Ruben

[nina0113]

Is that link all of the Didache, or is that an abridged version? I always thought it was some big heavy thing that I would need an uninterrupted week to get through.

[Unbeliever]

Poor popaganda attempt. The cult of rome was started by those who joined with roman pagans under emporer constantine in order to save their own lives. You are trying to claim that All Christians joined that cult which is not true. You are also trying to infer that God has no control over the Bible.
Won't wash padre.

[ThomasMore]

Is that link all of the Didache

That's It!

[ThomasMore]

The cult of rome was started by those who joined with roman pagans under emporer constantine in order to save their own lives.

What historical truths do you base this on?

[ThomasMore]

You are trying to claim that All Christians joined that cult which is not true.

Your statement begs the question "Was the Church Catholic before the Edict of Milan?"

[patent]

>>>Reading that depresses me. How can anyone hope to live like that?

We all fall short of ideals. Which parts bothered you?

[patent]

>>>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.

You mean the Scripture those grievous wolves picked at a Church council?

patent

[Unbeliever]

Why do you call yourself unbeliever? Is it because you don't believe in Our Lord?

No, it is because even though God gave us the Truth preserved in the Holy Bible people like you reject it, falsely call yourselves Christians, and prefer instead to folow an idolatrous man made cult.
Here is a simple test. Tell me where in the Bible did Jesus or any of the Apostles "venerate images" or teach anyone else to do so?

[patent]

>>>Due to the fact that the RCC was persecuting anyone who dared HAVE a bible???

B.S. The Vulgate was known as the popular man's edition, and was in Latin as that was the written language that most folks who could read. (the very few who could). But of course the Church did that, translating it into a language people could read, in order to keep the Bible away from them, right?

patent

[patent]

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

There you go again, telling us what we believe. Guess what, a man just tried to tell me what I'm required to believe (that's you) and I don't believe him or it. If Jesus said it, we believe it.

patent

[MissAmericanPie]

Don't be depressed, if you could live like that you wouldn't need the sacrifice of Jesus. You can strive to live like that however and the Holy Spirit leads you to the place where conforming to His image is a natural instead of an unnatural state of being.

For example the part that talks about giving and not asking for it back serves as a good example of human nature. Have you ever loaned money to a friend only to have that friend dump you or become resentful of you? I have, and it was a mystery to me, until I understood the fact that they felt they owed me something they could not repay made them angry with me for the guilt they were experiencing.

So now when a friend comes to me in trouble and needs money, help, whatever, I make sure that they understand I do not expect repayment, that it is a gift of love to be passed on as they can, but not to me. Their relief is all over their face to be released from the obligation of repayment. Sure, you can be taken advantage of, but that is not your lookout, your lookout is to obey and leave it to God to take pleasure in your obedience, and if it be His will, to work in that person the seed of kindness you planted in his memory.

[Dataman]

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.

This is utter nonsense for several reasons:

"Church" isn't defined,
JWs and Mormons are certainly unreliable sources for any kind of history,
An body as widespread and established as the Christian Church couldn't possibly "go apostate" in a year.

The writer continues to be deliberately vague and pretends to have resolved the apostasy question. He also fails to distinguish between a formal and a pre-existing informal Canon. He conveniently fails to mention the reason for the Canon in the first place: pseudepigrapha began to circulate.

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 conclusion is not inescapable because the assumptions about the Church and the Cannon have not been established.

[Dataman]

With no recognized compiled cannon, the idea of early "biblical" Christianity was non-existant. True, the Gospels were probably widely used, but there is much silence as to what else was used in the mean time.

Utter nonsense. You could find it out for yourself in the most basic Bible encyclopedia. Even Peter acknowledged Paul's writings to be inspired.

[Romulus]

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.

The Catholic is unable to live with the contradictions that Jesus established a Church that He promised would endure, that for a period God preserved the church; that He then stopped doing so; that finally He resumed His protection. The Catholic is unable to ignore the way such elaborate and arbitrary theories serve the peculiar convenience of the sects in question, and the fact that the general apostasy herein hypothesized is undetectable in the historical record. Finally, the Catholic is unable to reconcile such fanciful theories with any notion of a faithful God, and rejects with scorn the image of Christ as an absent and vagrant Spouse.

[malakhi]

Darn it. I changed that error yesterday but this article was deleted by one of the FR higherups!

If I may make a suggestion...if you have an article deleted, it is not a wise idea to repost it. This can be a quick way to get yourself banned.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

With no recognized compiled cannon, the idea of early "biblical" Christianity was non-existant. True, the Gospels were probably widely used, but there is much silence as to what else was used in the mean time.

In Acts 17:10 It tells how the Bereans searched the "scripture" to see if the things Paul told them were true.

In 2 Tim 2:15 Paul tells Timothy to search the "scripture"

Something alot of people overlook is that the Jews of Jesus's day had the OLD TESTEMENT. That is the scripture that the apostles taught from. Jesus and the plan of salvation are all through the OT. Peter at Pentecost showed the Jews he was speaking from how Jesus matched the prophesy that was spoken of in the OT about the Messiah.

The OT Jews were looking for ward to the coming Messiah, but their were very few who recognized him because they were looking for a king and also there was probably alot of them like people today who don't really study God's word and understand what it says, consequently they don't know God's will. This is a good example to keep in mind about why we should study this book and teach is to our children in the manner God told us too. Check out Deut. 6:7

Becky

[BibChr]

Hollow bleating. That you don't like what I say is irrelevant to its truth-content, which in this case not only is 100%, but is one of what an RC thinks is his bragging-points ("we all believe the same thing [because we believe what we're told to believe by the RCC], all you Protestants are so divided").

Dan