Posted on 08/16/2007 5:12:39 PM PDT by annalex
There were considerable discussions all along what is and what is not inspired. The opinions varied widely: some considered only a few books: gospel of Luke and some Pauline epistles as inspired; others would include letters of the early popes as well. The cirteria for canonicity were
There were about 70 gospels to choose from. The manuscripts differed as well. The authorship is rarely spelled out in the books themselves, and was in dispute in many cases. The Church was the deciding factor in forming the New Testament Canon.
The Old Testament Canon was an easier matter thanks to the Jewish tradition; however, in an attempt to convict Christians of apostacy, the council of Jamnia (AD 90) removed books form the Septuagint and settled on the Masoretic Jewish Tradition instead, thus putting the Deuterocanonical books in doubt. That, too, was settled for the Christians in the African councils, till Luther decided to revive the controversy and eliminate books that did not fit his theological fantasies.
The books themselves were not written by baptist ministers either; all the human writers are saints of the Catholic Church.
For more, see
Insidents of homosexuality and pedofilia in the Catholic clergy is not higher than in other religious institutions; it is much lower than in the public schools. At its peak in the 70’s and 80’s aboput 4% of the Catholic clergy was accused. At this point, the Inquisition is at work in Catholic seminaries to rid the Church of the lavender mafia for good and completely.
The interest in the left wing media in highlighting the defects of the Catholic Church is however, unprecedented.
Definitely. The 20 c has seen a shift from ethno-cultural Catholicism of the Spanish, Poles and Italians to religion as a matter of choice. This cause a significant outflow form the Church in favor of the easier theologies of Protestantism, especially in traditionally Protestant America.
So, can your 3,000 ex-Catholics articulate their thoughts on church authority and tradition?
Harley,
Have you ever heard of Marcion? Are you aware of the history behind him? Did you know that at that point, the various bishops began making lists and so forth until the Church defined the canon?
Is the Church supposed to listen to every guy who comes along with some "theory" that parts of the Sacred Scriptures don't belong? Marcion wanted to toss out the OT, Luthe had his list of "acceptable scriptures" as well. The Church has been tasked to protect the Tradition once given, not Marcion, not Luther.
Regards
Rome did not have a representative there and Jerome had already started the translation known as the Vulgate. Also, those meetings just reaffirmed what was already accepted. IOW, Rome did not really declare what they believed the Canon to be until after the fact.
This is correct. This is how the Church generally operates: things are not proclaimed at councils unless someone disputes them.
Very much true in the case of the canonical gospels and the letters of St. Paul.
Very much false in the case of everything else. In the early church, "canonical Scriptures" was synonymous with "read in the liturgy". Some places read the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Epistles of Clement in the liturgy. Some didn't. To this day, Revelation is not read in the Orthodox liturgy, though they (today) consider it canonical.
But this is kind of anachronistic of you, Harley. If it's so "easy" to tell what was inspired, why did Luther declare, not merely that the Epistle of James wasn't inspired, but that its author wasn't even a Christian?
Do you recognize the fact that “ethno-cultural” religion won’t save anyone?
“in favor of the easier theologies of Protestantism, especially in traditionally Protestant America.”
What make you think they are “easier”.
“So, can your 3,000 ex-Catholics articulate their thoughts on church authority and tradition?”
Only about 1/2 are ex-catholics - and yes, the one’s I am familiar with can articulate their faith rather well. Are you falling into the, “anyone who leaves the Catholic church must be an idiot” trap?
Depends on the religion and on the person. If a cradle Catholic goes through solid catechisis, understands and practices his faith, confesses sins and receives the Holy Communion, of course he will be saved. An interesting question is, would a cradle Protestant be saved? The answer to this one is far more complicated.
What make you think [the Protestant theologies] are “easier”.
Primarily, the variations on the security of salvation theme, and the relaxed teaching on contraception and divorce.
can articulate their faith
What would they say on the specific issues raised by Kresta in this segment, on the necessity to choose between traditions and on the authority and visible character of the Church?
anyone who leaves the Catholic church must be an idiot
No, but it is easier to leave the Church than to stay in it. We are a counter-cultural early medieval organisation. I am not surprised when Catholics leave; I am surprised how many of them come back enlightened by the experience.
Depends on the religion and on the person. If a cradle Catholic goes through solid catechisis, understands and practices his faith, confesses sins and receives the Holy Communion, of course he will be saved. An interesting question is, would a cradle Protestant be saved? The answer to this one is far more complicated.
What make you think [the Protestant theologies] are “easier”.
Primarily, the variations on the security of salvation theme, and the relaxed teaching on contraception and divorce.
can articulate their faith
What would they say on the specific issues raised by Kresta in this segment, on the necessity to choose between traditions and on the authority and visible character of the Church?
anyone who leaves the Catholic church must be an idiot
No, but it is easier to leave the Church than to stay in it. We are a counter-cultural early medieval organisation. I am not surprised when Catholics leave; I am surprised how many of them come back enlightened by the experience.
Part 3 of the conversion story.
That's quite untrue, PM. In fact, what you quoted from 1 John is a fine summary of the Catholic view of salvation, which is essentially divine sonship.
I said, “if a cradle Catholic goes through solid catechisis, understands and practices his faith, confesses sins and receives the Holy Communion, of course he will be saved.” In other words I had enumerated either directly or by summary (”practices his faith”) the requirements that you say I missed.
I agree that if a Protestant obeys all the commandments of Christ, goes to confession and received the Holy Eucharist, then he, too will be saved. But then he will be with Al Kresta today.
No, It was obviously not easy for Kresta to leave, as we see from the three parts already posted. That is because the modernity gives one a very strong bias against sacramental hierarchical religion.
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part IV: Crucifix and Altar
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.