Posted on 08/27/2010 11:45:13 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Good post...
I agree wholeheartedly. I am flabbergasted at how well we all know the hearts and minds of others and how poorly we know our own. So frequently someone will accuse another poster of some high crime and I'll be thinking "but that's exactly what you did in your last post!" Of course I always notice it when I'm not involved in the discussion because it's so blatantly obvious when other people do it. Seeing it in ourselves, that's tough.
I think the way I learned it is that no one chooses evil -- one chooses what one perceives as good (not necessarily moral good here). Maybe a failure of perception? Tunnel vision?
Just a thought. I realize your background in this stuff is far more extensive than mine.
I am sorry, that is a straw man, Mr. Rogers. Origen considered them "divinely inspired." Obviously, if the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas are included in the oldest extant complete Christian Bible (Codex Sinaiticus, c. AD 350), they must have been considered "scripture," by those who included them in the Bible, don't you think? Does it get any more "scriptural" than that?
Your favorite argument tool, the Chrester Beatty codex, includes the Book of Enoch, as well as the Apocrypha of Ezekiel in its collection, as well as the Old testament "Apocrypha." The Bodmer collection contains the Protoevnagelium of James, for example, showing that this 2nd century work was placed together with other books considered scripture. Also, Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch as scripture. The "Apocrypha" are not scripture in the Protestant Bible, but were considered scripture in Christian canons from the beginning (Septuagint for sure). Today, scriptures are no less uniform than they were back then.
Not only are there different books in different churches, correpsondinf to different doctrine s and beliefs, but there are different versions (translations) of the same canon, expressing a myriad of "angles" in this never-ending fabrication of religious beliefs.
There is also no doubt that doctrine was based even on texts which are not officially mentioned as scripture. The Protoevangelium of James is not scripture, yet it's the source of Catholic and Orthodox belief in Mary's perpetual virginity, a central dogma in both Churches. St. Gregory of Nyssa, a student of Origen and one of Cappadocian Fathers (who are the backbone of orthodoxy), in his early years preached universal salvation based on Gnostic sources.
It is undeniable that various beliefs that plagues Christianity then as they do today, were derived from core Christian books (Gospels, Pauline Epistles) as well as from non-canonical books. The reality on the ground simply does not fit the idealized picture of how it all came about, especially as early as you'd like it, which is what maryz objected to and quite rightly so.
The historical picture that can be discerned is just the opposite: it was a long, arduous process, and a colossal failure because Christianity was as heterodox in doctrine, beliefs, and canon then as it is today.
The only thing Christians share in common is this elusive idea, or better yet myth they call Christ, who is neatly fitted into everyone's individual mental box and who, in reality, is many different things to many different people.
The Council of Carthage was but one of many local African Councils. It was, in no way, binding on the entire Church.
Catholic Encyclopedia - The 21 Ecumenical Councils
The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent , Session IV, 1546. For the Old Testament its catalogue reads as follows:
The five books of Moses (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), Josue, Judges ,Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras (which latter is called Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter (in number one hundred and fifty Psalms), Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets (Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc , Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias), two books of Machabees, the first and second.
Catholic Encyclopedia - The canon of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church
Here you seem to say that you did make that statement or one like it.
I passed lots of posts where you commented on the failure of the Sacred Body to look like anything but a wafer.
At post 2933 of this thread I find:
Why doesn't [present tense - emphasis added] the Catholic church serve BOTH elements of communion to its adherents as Christ did with His disciples and commanded us to take both the bread and the cup?
Here's what may be a claim to authority:
You do know, don’t you, that many of us were RAISED Catholic? You know, baptized, First Communion, confirmation, confession, catechism classes, Catholic family, Catholic classmates, Catholic co-workers?
And, here's a claim
being raised Catholic I DO know what I’m talking about.
Here you seem to say you don't know what goes on in the Masses of the year:
I wonder if they ever read the Beatitudes in that church.
(As someone who knows ALL about the Catholic Church knows, they are read on All Saints Day.)
And here's you say you know better:
Bears repeating, and we ex-Catholics do know better. We know what the Catholic church teaches because we were raised and catechized in it. We know what other Catholics that we worked with, went to school with, had communion parties, confirmation parties, marriages, and funerals with believed because we talked about it. Some of us even have family members who were in the Catholic clergy and really KNOW what the Catholic church teaches.
And Here:
We *ex's* know perfectly well why we left and it IS because we "really" understood Catholic doctrine.
I don't see how you can be sure the belief didn't precede the Protoevangelium and so ended up being included in it.
No. Books collected together do not mean all are considered scripture. The Apocrypha was collected with the OT, yet not considered God’s word by the Jews (or Protestants, generally).
I thought the Jews didn’t have anything like an actual canon (except for the Sadduccees accepting only the Torah) untl Yavneh (the form I prefer to Jamnia).
The "Roman pontiff" in question certainly wasn't the pontiff of the New Age Roman Catholic Church of Rome, New York.
Once again you have ducked an answer concerning the "Infallibility" of Unam Sanctam. Why?
Yes. Nobody chooses evil as such. It is a (mis) perceived good that we choose. It's not to say , "Well he didn't realize what he was doing, there, there, poor, dear." We SHOULD know, for example, that it's gonna take an AWFUL lot of chocolate to make up for having to buy the new clothes the chocolate will require us to buy.
Even when we talk about 'mens rea' I guess the actual 'mens' is "Law? Who cares about the law? It's just hell toodling along AT 75 mph when this porsche can do 115." The fun or convenience of the speed is overvalued and the law is despised. That's culpable.
I think.
When I posted this I was not aware that the person it was addressed to had been told to leave the thread, I apologize.
The Catholic Church allows for heretical Popes. True or false?
Not only did I affirm Unam Sanctam, but you complimented me on my foolhardiness candor.
It is an important difference. The Roman Pontiff is Bishop of Rome AND honcho di tutti honchi of ALL the Catholic rites and subsets and whatever. Part of "getting" what we think is "the Church" is getting that the Roaming Calflick church is not the whole deal.
And you already gave me the Mr. Pedantic Pants T-shirt. I'm just striving to be worthy. Heaven may come by grace, but a T-shirt like that comes only by merit.
I'm too stupid to be intimidated.
Popes may have held heretical opinions but never declared and defined them. They were allowed in the sense that they happened.
But they were not allowed in that there is no canon that says, "Eminent D00ds! Feel free to elect a heretic!"
“Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the twenty-four books of the Masoretic Text, commonly called the Tanakh or “Hebrew Bible”. Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BC and AD 200, indeed a popular position is that the Torah was canonized circa 400 BC, the Prophets circa 200 BC, and the Writings circa AD 100[5] perhaps at a hypothetical Council of Jamnia—however this position is increasingly criticised by modern scholars.”
That is Wiki, but I could dig out other sources for the same thing if I wanted to spend the time.
One case suffices. The New York Yankees.
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.