The vanishing bible

Catholic World News ^ | 11-19-2004

[Stubborn]

Well-meaning, not highly educated Catholics who eagerly joined bible-study groups after the Council not uncommonly found their inherited faith shaken, as they were invited -- by group leaders and by written materials -- to scrutinize Catholic teachings and practices sceptically and to measure them against the New Testament in classical Protestant fashion, a scrutiny which usually seemed to work to the Church's disadvantage. Although this was not their original intention, many people became liberal Catholics through the medium of Bible study. (Thus liberal Catholics are quick to ask, for example, "Where does the New Testament condemn homosexuality?" or "Where does it say that women cannot be ordained priests?")

[JHavard]

It would seem that you don't understand the purpose of prayer for the dead. Hint: it's not to alter God's judgments. Take the example of a law court which condemns a man to pay a large fine. If you pay part of his fine for him, are you "altering" the court's judgment or fulfilling it?

Matthew 18:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Romans 2:5-6 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

1 Cor 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

V-13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

It would appear that if Christ doesn’t stand up for us, there is nothing any man can do to effect Gods judgment.

As for the damned, of course they will remain in Hell forever - prayer is only given to those who were judged righteous by God but were not fully absolved of all reparation due for their forgiven sins. See 2 Samuel 12:13-14: "The Lord also hath taken away thy sin ... for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die". He was forgiven, his sin "taken away", yet still punished for "this thing".

And you found all this in an apocryphal book that no one even knows who the author was, or when it was written? If the Jews rejected it, you should have taken a hint, after all, it was their history that you seem to know more about then they do, go figger. :)

JH :)

[JHavard]

At length, after an exposition of the catholic faith to the abbot, as far as this seemed to be necessary, and his humble acceptance of it, we have delivered in the name of the Lord in this solemn session, with the approval of this sacred ecumenical council of Florence, the following true and necessary doctrine ...

The Ecumenical Council of Basel – Ferrara – Florence - and Rome was assembled in hopes of reuniting the Eastern Church, the Copts, and Christian Egypt, with the Western Church, so it certainly didn’t represent the whole Church.

Furthermore, when the whole reunion fell apart, so did any canon they had tried to get an agreement on.

That’s why the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn’t bother using it as an example of the canonical books in 1442. Look up the Canon of the Old Testament, they dedicated four lines to it.

CE- The order of books copies that of the Council of Florence, 1442, and in its general plan is that of the Septuagint. The divergence of titles from those found in the Protestant versions is due to the fact that the official Latin Vulgate retained the forms of the Septuagint.

Hummmm, the general plan is that of the Septuagint? But, but, but I thought the official Latin Vulgate was the one Jerome translated from the Hebrew, not the Septuagint?

Boy, am I confused now, and I’m still not sure what your official Latin Vulgate was taken from, the Hebrew or the Greek? Can you help me out on this? :)

JH :)

[JHavard]

Wow, way to take that out of context. He's referring to Christians: "they [the unbelieving Jews], not knowing the justice of God and seeking to establish their own, have not submitted themselves to the justice of God. For the end of the law is Christ: unto justice to everyone that believeth." (Rom 10:3-4)

And that's exactely what I was referring to, the Gentile Christians, and the Jewish Christans.

The Jewish Christians still kept the Laws of Moses, circumcision, the Levitical dietary laws of clean and unclean meats, the Jewish feast days, the Sabbath, the Temple etc, while the Gentiles were only asked to...

Acts 15:19-20 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

The believing Gentiles and Jew had much less in comon with each other then the Catholic Church and the Non-Catholics today, yet Paul said, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

Now do you get it?

JH :)

[JHavard]

For myself, yes. However, some Jews do beleive that when a male son (in particular) prays Kaddish for the 11 months after the death of a parent, G-d grants additional merit to the deceased person's soul. (Basically if you raised a son righteous enough to be willing to say Kaddish every day for 11 months, you're a pretty good person.)

This is very interesting, but can you imagine the pressure it puts on the son?

Some Jews don't believe in eternal life either, they believe that keeping the law brings earthly blessings, and nothing else.

I suppose you keep all the levitical laws such as clean and unclean meats?

I kept them for over eleven years, and I still keep the Sabbath rest, but not as a command, but a blessed day to rest on.

JH :)

[gonow]

"It took quite a long time for the Jewish scriptures to be canonized, and during Jesus' time, the Jews didn't have agreement on what was inspired scripture"

This is false. The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ quotes from the same divisions that the Jewish people used, and in one place even the same order. They were already set when Jesus came. For instance, Jesus mentioned the law, the prophets, and psalsm (Luke 24:44). He did not mention the law, the prophets, the psalms, and the apocrapha.

Consider that the catholic church could be wrong, and you could know about it by reading the bible. Consider futhermore that the catholic church and the pope has a very self-interested reason to put its authority in place of God's Holy Word. If you want more examples of Jesus Christ quoting scripture, email me. Jesus Christ quoted scripture frequently. He never once quoted the catholic books.

[gonow]

"It took quite a long time for the Jewish scriptures to be canonized, and during Jesus' time, the Jews didn't have agreement on what was inspired scripture"

This is false. The Lord and Savior Jesus Christ quotes from the same divisions that the Jewish people used, and in one place even the same order. They were already set when Jesus came. For instance, Jesus mentioned the law, the prophets, and psalsm (Luke 24:44). He did not mention the law, the prophets, the psalms, and the apocrapha.

Consider that the catholic church could be wrong, and you could know about it by reading the bible. Consider futhermore that the catholic church and the pope has a very self-interested reason to put its authority in place of God's Holy Word. If you want more examples of Jesus Christ quoting scripture, email me. Jesus Christ quoted scripture frequently. He never once quoted the catholic books.

[Stubborn]

Another blatant mis-interpretation. Please remember to read the rest of the verse...."for the same is the Lord over all, rich unto all that call upon him."

[Stubborn]

No, the writer is blaming the mis-interpreting of scripture, common among Protestants, for the loss of faith.

[Stubborn]

I appreciate your answer, but it doesn't answer my original question, which is...who determines "authorized interpretations" and states doctrine. I believe the implied answer based on many posts in this thread, is the "one Church" is the Catholic church, but there is a lot of beating around the bush to avoid making what should be a rather clear statement. If you sincerely believe something, I don't know why you'd be afraid to state that belief clearly. I do not believe the Catholic Church has any authority to "authorize" interpretations of God's word. I believe God is "The One" authority, and that he communicates with us directly.

*2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first, that no prophesy of the Scripture is made by private interpretation.

*This shows plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by anyone's private judgement or private spirit; because every part of holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which He has left and promised to remain with His Church to guide Her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us that many of our divines interpret the Scriptures. They may do so but they do it always with a submission to the judgement of the Church and not otherwise.

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter, not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

[Stubborn]

Oops, I forgot to add to the above post that * is from the footnote for 2 Peter 1:20, the last paragraph is a definition from Vatican Council I.

[unspun]

No, the writer is blaming the mis-interpreting of scripture, common among Protestants, for the loss of faith.

Common among people, would be a much better way to put it, don't you think? Common among people with offices in the church. Common among people at large.

[Rokke]

Your assumption here must be that the Vatican has some divinely ordained authority not shared by other men. That the Spirit of God acts only through the Church. That is completely false. The "holy mother church" has no more authority to "religiously guard" God's gift of the scriptures than your protestant or Catholic neighbor. The Vatican has an incredibly clear history of proving it is as flawed and mortal as every other organization run by men. To assume it exists at some level between man and God is blaspheme as far as I am concerned. When Christ taught us to pray, he taught us to pray to Him directly. When He spoke with his children He spoke with them directly. He sent the Holy Spirit to be with us directly. Somehow, the Vatican has convinced billions of people that they must rely on its wisdom and interpretation of God's will to communicate with God. I find that incredibly sad.

[Stubborn]

True, very true indeed.

[Stubborn]

Well, you asked. Sorry the answer does not agree with your opinion.

[gbcdoj]

Now do you get it?

Both the believing Jews and Gentiles were branches of the same tree (the Catholic Church) cf. Rom 11:16-24 and they were united. Non-Catholics are not members of the Body of Christ and they are not united with Catholics.

[gbcdoj]

When He spoke with his children He spoke with them directly.

He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. (Lk 10:16)

[gbcdoj]

He did not mention the law, the prophets, the psalms, and the apocrapha.

Where do the historical books fit into "law, the prophets, the psalms"? If they counted as prophets or psalms, why wouldn't the 'apocrypha'? The Talmud witnesses to the fact that the canon wasn't settled among the Jews:

"Remember that man of good, Hananiah, son of Hezekiah, by name, since but for him the book of Ezekiel would have been withdrawn [ganaz], because its words contradict the words of the law. What did he do? They brought up to him 300 measures of oil, and he sat in an upper room and explained them." (Sabbath 13b, Hagiga 13a, Menahoth 45a)

"The wise men desired to withdraw [ganaz] the Book of Ecclesiastes because its language was often self-contradictory and contradicted the utterances of David. Why did they not withdraw it? Because the beginning and the end of it consists of the words of the law."

"Some desired also to withdraw [ganaz] the Book of Proverbs, because it contained internal contradictions, but the attempt was abandoned because the wise men declared, 'We have examined more deeply into the Book of Ecclesiastes, and have dicovered the solution of the difficulty; here also we wish to inquire more deeply.'" (Sabbath 30b)

"First they said that Proverbs, Canticles, and Ecclesiastes are apocryphal [genusim]. They said they were parabolic writings and not of the Hagiographa… till the men of the Great Synagogue came and explained them." (Aboth of R. Nathan, chapter 1)

"All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes defile the hands. R. Judah says, the Song of Solomon defiles the hands, and Ecclesiastes is disputed. R. Jose says, Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands, and the Song of Solomon disputed. R. Simon says, Ecclesiastes belongs to the light things of the School of Shammai, and the heavy things of the school of Hillel. R. Simeon, son of Azzai says, I received it as a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they enthroned R. Eliezer, son of Azariah [as President of the Beth Din of Jamnia. ], that the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes defiles the hands. R. Akiba said, Silence and Peace! No one in Israel has ever doubted that the Song of Solomon defiles the hands. For no day in the history of the world is worth the day when the Song of Solomon was given to Israel. For all the Hagiographa are holy, but the Song of Solomon is a holy of holies. If there has been any dispute, it referred only to Ecclesiastes…. So they disputed, and so they decided." (Yadaim, 3.5)

"Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands according to the school of Shammai, but does so according to the school of Hillel." (Eduyoth, 5.3)

"The Gospels [gilion] and the books of the heretics are not holy scripture; the books of the son of Sirach and all books that have been written since his time are not holy scripture." (Tosephta, Jadaim, 2)

Jesus Christ quoted scripture frequently. He never once quoted the catholic books.

He never quoted the Song of Songs, either.

[gbcdoj]

Yes. Men with a living faith (cf. James 2:20) are justified, forgiven of their sins, and will reach Heaven, even if they must pass through the purgatorial state first. Men without a living faith will be condemned.

[JHavard]

That's not the logical interpretation.

The logical interpretation is..

If you apply mans logic, you can come up with all sorts of reasonable sounding things, such as confession to a priest, the assumption of Mary’s body, Mary remained a virgin, Peter was a pope, apostolic succession, calling a priest father, using a mediator between man and God besides Christ, not requiring the cup be drank for communion, praying to dead people, purgatory, limbo, canonizing unknown books, that Mary was immaculately conceived, and Papal infallibility.

These are all perfect examples of Catholic Logic without scriptural support.
The logical interpretation is that Paul learned the Gospel from Stephen,

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Gal 1:16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
V-17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

Maybe Paul’s just confused here, but it seems he’s saying that men had nothing to do with the Gospel he taught.

that Paul learned the Gospel from Stephen, the protomartyr, whom he had killed, and possibly from other Christians he persecuted (Acts 6-8). He had ample opportunity to grow in his knowledge of the Lord from the Damascus Christians with whom he stayed after his miraculous conversion, and from the apostles with whom he stayed in Jerusalem.

So Paul learned from a dead martyr?
Instead of all the speculation, why don’t you simply read what Paul said concerning his learning the Gospel?

He conferred not with flesh and blood
not of men, neither by man,
I conferred not with flesh and blood
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me;
but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father,

I realize the pure facts take some of the fun out of speculation, and logic, but it saves us from a lot of confusion. (That’s is if we believe the word of God.) :)

Paul received the grace and faith to believe in the Gospel from the Holy Spirit. It is recorded in Acts (9:20) that even in Damascus, while staying with the local Christian community, he "began at once to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues", after having received the gift of the Holy Spirit through the sacrament of baptism by the disciple Ananias.

I’m not sure if there’s a statement or a question here?

JH :)

[Lilllabettt]

The Orthodox with a big O refers to the eastern Catholic Church which was seperated from the West in the year 1054, when both sides excommunicated each other for basically political reasons.

The orthodox with a small o means those who are strictly religiously observant. As in not heterodox, or disobedient, or dissenting.

You asked me for my definition of 'Church'. I said: my definition is the same as the Vatican's, whcih is made clear in their documents.