protestants reading the bible are taking the catholic church's word for it.

[T_More]

Others have differing beliefs regarding what is really true and what the Scriptures really say.

Hence the reason we have so many divisions within Christianity. All of us should be charitable in how we interact with one another, but sometimes facts can sting. It did for me when I started looking more closely at the CC. I was part of a sect that demonized the CC, so it was a major paradigm shift to come to understand the CC’s teachings. The more I prayed, the more I was drawn to the Church. But this didn’t come without some sleepless nights wondering “What about this doctrine?” or “What about that doctrine?”. I wish you the best in your own spiritual journey, wherever it may lead.

 

[robdaddyf]

This all has to do with your opinion and how you perceive the subject. Others have differing beliefs regarding what is really true and what the Scriptures really say.

We know that but we think our view is the best one on the subject and share it accordingly. I share my point of view because I want others to understand what I’ve come to know. This doesn’t mean that I know everything or that you don’t know anything.

I enter the Catholic Church this Easter precisely because I have taken the last 10 years trying to refute the Catholic perspective on many things…likewise trying to grow in prayer and love for God and neighbor. I’m no expert but all that I’ve been able to “dig up” on the Catholic Church as “negatives” turned around and bit me and pulled me in…which is funny because my grandfather used to say to me, “Don’t go near that Catholic Church…they’ll make you crawl on the ground like a snake.” (One relative rolls in grave)

 

[Proallen]

We know that but we think our view is the best one on the subject and share it accordingly. I share my point of view because I want others to understand what I’ve come to know. This doesn’t mean that I know everything or that you don’t know anything.

I enter the Catholic Church this Easter precisely because I have taken the last 10 years trying to refute the Catholic perspective on many things…likewise trying to grow in prayer and love for God and neighbor. I’m no expert but all that I’ve been able to “dig up” on the Catholic Church as “negatives” turned around and bit me and pulled me in…which is funny because my grandfather used to say to me, “Don’t go near that Catholic Church…they’ll make you crawl on the ground like a snake.” (One relative rolls in grave)

If this is true, then why does your profile still say Almost Catholic instead of Catholic Convert?? And I’m not trying to be uncharitable, I just believe that you should go in the direction you seem to be seeking.

 

[Palaeologos]

That the writer of “Luke” was aware of other gospels gives credence that he used “Mark” as well as “Q”(for lack of a better term) since he incorporated Mark and “Q” into his…with perhaps another source…perhaps even oral…and Luke was written after Paul died. Matthew had his own “version” and used Mark and Q as well.

Very interesting, Publisher. Can you show me this “Q” you speak of?

In all seriousness, I really wish people would stop quoting Source Criticism theories as though they were (excuse me) gospel. They explain quite a bit about the texts, but there’s an evidentiary problem. It’s one thing to posit a document Q which is the source for the similarities between the Synoptics; it’s quite another thing to build towers of theory based on a putative document which no one has ever seen.

In re : Pagels, Raymond E. Brown (nobody’s conservative, surely) has criticized her for a lack of balance and attention to recent scholarship. My own impression is that she, like Bart Ehrman, has achieved tenure, become lazy, and started turning out books for the popular press rather than original research. Which is, of course, their prerogative, but it’s a tad dishonest to publish gross simplifications of complex ideas in order to trade on an academic reputation. Sort of like Jack “Hey, I’m a bishop!” Spong publishing books which attack Christianity while using his authority and visibility as a TEC bishop to sell them.

 

[robdaddyf]

If this is true, then why does your profile still say Almost Catholic instead of Catholic Convert?? And I’m not trying to be uncharitable, I just believe that you should go in the direction you seem to be seeking.

Good question, that could be confusing. I’m not Catholic according to the Church yet so I can’t call myself fully “Catholic.” (Though I certainly am in heart) I enter the Church this Easter Vigil. (Holy Saturday) I don’t take you as uncharitable in the least. I’m sure you’re a great person.

 

[robdaddyf]

Very interesting, Publisher. Can you show me this “Q” you speak of? .

I think CCR was referring to “Q” when it sang, “Oh Suzy Q…” listen to the song again and tell me if I’m wrong! Very strange.

 

[Proallen]

Good question, that could be confusing. I’m not Catholic according to the Church yet so I can’t call myself fully “Catholic.” (Though I certainly am in heart) I enter the Church this Easter Vigil. (Holy Saturday) I don’t take you as uncharitable in the least. I’m sure you’re a great person.

Thank you. Although I do not share your beliefs regarding Rome, I appreciate your dilligence and your definitive direction. I wish you well.

 

[Publisher]

Very interesting, Publisher. Can you show me this “Q” you speak of?

In all seriousness, I really wish people would stop quoting Source Criticism theories as though they were (excuse me) gospel. They explain quite a bit about the texts, but there’s an evidentiary problem. It’s one thing to posit a document Q which is the source for the similarities between the Synoptics; it’s quite another thing to build towers of theory based on a putative document which no one has ever seen.

In re : Pagels, Raymond E. Brown (nobody’s conservative, surely) has criticized her for a lack of balance and attention to recent scholarship. My own impression is that she, like Bart Ehrman, has achieved tenure, become lazy, and started turning out books for the popular press rather than original research. Which is, of course, their prerogative, but it’s a tad dishonest to publish gross simplifications of complex ideas in order to trade on an academic reputation. Sort of like Jack “Hey, I’m a bishop!” Spong publishing books which attack Christianity while using his authority and visibility as a TEC bishop to sell them.

Your disdain of Bishop Spong is understandable as you come from a "conservative’ viewpoint…Raymond Brown may have difficulty with Pagels…but Bart Erhman is a recongnized historian…I know many believe he has “an agenda”…he looks at the biblical formation of texts without the coloring of the “religious eye”…and I find his writing refreshingly void of the mysticism I find among Catholic and Conservative writers…he states facts and seeks to draw plausible conclusions…not “God did thus” or “God did this” to seek to “proove” the divinity of any text.

His “Lost Christianities” and “Lost Scriptures” were a delight to read…his “Gospel of Judas” was also interesting as to the thought process occuring in early Christianity…Elaine Pagels, Bart Erhman, John Spong, Marcus Borg, Huston Smith, John Domminic Crossan make much more sense to me than any of the conservative writers/scholars I have encountered.

A wonderful text I have found invaluable in understanding the formation of the canon is Robert Price’s “Pre-Nicene New Testament”…great read.

 

[Palaeologos]

Your disdain of Bishop Spong is understandable as you come from a "conservative’ viewpoint…

Well, I still believe in God, so I suppose by Spong’s standards that makes me conservative!

Raymond Brown may have difficulty with Pagels…but Bart Erhman is a recongnized historian…I know many believe he has “an agenda”…he looks at the biblical formation of texts without the coloring of the “religious eye”…and I find his writing refreshingly void of the mysticism I find among Catholic and Conservative writers…he states facts and seeks to draw plausible conclusions…not “God did thus” or “God did this” to seek to “proove” the divinity of any text.

There are lots of authors who inhabit the middle ground. Peter Brown, Jaroslav Pelikan, and William Walker come to mind. You won’t find any of them using divine agency as an excuse for anything, yet they don’t feel compelled to scoff at the notion that religion might actually be true, either. All three of these historians are able to retain historiographic objectivity without making catty judgments about Christian credulity.

 

[JonNC]

=robdaddyf;6389206]Actually Jon, “de-former” is actually a better term though “re-former” is typically what is used. To reform something gives a sense of improvement…making things “as they once were.” This is not what happened.

Even if one rejects the Lutheran Reformation, its effect brought about reform even in the Catholic Church. So, in a sense, it did happen, even from a Catholic viewpoint.

In Luther’s defense I can say that there were clearly abuses going on during his time in THE Church…I am the first to admit that…however, these abuses were on a localized level and his impassioned approach to changing things did not take into consideration the greater good the of the Church as a whole. In my opinion Luther did far more harm than good…hence…de-former seems to fit.

If you consider Rome “localized”, ok. But again, the term “de-former” is insulting, and does not lead to charitable dialogue, anymore than if I used some of the old polemical slurs used against Catholic in the past.

Does this bring us closer together? Well, in my case (being a former protestant myself…Presbyterian/Evangelical) I can tell you that an in depth study of the “Reformation” is what began to first clue me in to the beauty of the Catholic Church…this is a very common experience for many converts. I did a little “Sherlock Holmes” investigating over about a 10 year period. The thing that convinced me, however, was an in depth study of the Virgin Mary and the Eucharist…that’s for another day.

I thank God that you are where the Spirit has led you. I would suggest, though, that this type of language has the effect of burning bridges behind you, not for you to go back but for others who might be inclined to follow you.

Thanks for delving in a bit with me instead of just getting offended…helps a lot in a discussion of such topics.

It is why I’m here.

Jon

 

[robdaddyf]

Even if one rejects the Lutheran Reformation, its effect brought about reform even in the Catholic Church. So, in a sense, it did happen, even from a Catholic viewpoint.

If you consider Rome “localized”, ok. But again, the term “de-former” is insulting, and does not lead to charitable dialogue, anymore than if I used some of the old polemical slurs used against Catholic in the past.

I thank God that you are where the Spirit has led you. I would suggest, though, that this type of language has the effect of burning bridges behind you, not for you to go back but for others who might be inclined to follow you.

It is why I’m here.

Jon

What is often called the “Counter Reformation” was good in many ways.

Abuses occurring in some places were not happening throughout the Church as a whole.
So if you consider Germany…Rome…

Actually “reformation” implies something new forming right…even something good…which it wasn’t? When in actuality heretical teachings that have split the Church for centuries came of it…“Sola Scriptura” being one of them. Sorry, Luther deformed the Church on many levels…fractured, split, tore…call it what you will. I think to call it “Reformation” is “Misinformation” (Which given our historical ties with Great Britain, Germany etc which also have a bright and cheery past in regard to Catholics…the words we use were selected, largely by non-Catholic or anti-Catholics at best. So, tt isn’t a slur as much as calling it what it actually is…call me a “Fish-Eater” and I’ll agree. I have no animosity toward you or anyone else who doesn’t agree. However, what we call the “Civil War” was also at one time referred to as the “War of Northern Aggression” this was seen as a good title by those NOT from the Northern States. So words we use do matter and should be reflective of reality insofar as possible. A leg broken and not properly set would be called, “deformed.” It is not meant as an insult but is meant to communicate truth as I see it.

 

[JonNC]

What is often called the “Counter Reformation” was good in many ways.

Abuses occurring in some places were not happening throughout the Church as a whole.
So if you consider Germany…Rome…

Actually “reformation” implies something new forming right…even something good…which it wasn’t? When in actuality heretical teachings that have split the Church for centuries came of it…“Sola Scriptura” being one of them. Sorry, Luther deformed the Church on many levels…fractured, split, tore…call it what you will. I think to call it “Reformation” is “Misinformation” (Which given our historical ties with Great Britain, Germany etc which also have a bright and cheery past in regard to Catholics…the words we use were selected, largely by non-Catholic or anti-Catholics at best. So, tt isn’t a slur as much as calling it what it actually is…call me a “Fish-Eater” and I’ll agree. I have no animosity toward you or anyone else who doesn’t agree. However, what we call the “Civil War” was also at one time referred to as the “War of Northern Aggression” this was seen as a good title by those NOT from the Northern States. So words we use do matter and should be reflective of reality insofar as possible. A leg broken and not properly set would be called, “deformed.” It is not meant as an insult but is meant to communicate truth as I see it.

Truth as you see it, if you want others to agree, must lack in the telling things that insult or detract from the message. I would contend to you that Pope Benedict, and the Catholic leaders in dialogue with Lutherans, would not use your tactics to spread the truth. And I would further contend that they have had more success.

Jon

 

[Proallen]

Truth as you see it, if you want others to agree, must lack in the telling things that insult or detract from the message. I would contend to you that Pope Benedict, and the Catholic leaders in dialogue with Lutherans, would not use your tactics to spread the truth. And I would further contend that they have had more success.

Jon

That’s a very good and true point.

 

[robdaddyf]

Truth as you see it, if you want others to agree, must lack in the telling things that insult or detract from the message. I would contend to you that Pope Benedict, and the Catholic leaders in dialogue with Lutherans, would not use your tactics to spread the truth. And I would further contend that they have had more success.

Jon

I think it’s time to stop crying, “bully” on the playground.

 

[robdaddyf]

I would be interested to get your thoughts on this article.

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9605fea2.asp

 

[T_More]

Doesn’t “Reform” denote an action taking place within an entity?

 

[elvisman]

Actually there were divisions in the church just years after Jesus’ time on earth.

The Gospels we have were the Gospels used by the Early Church fathers, even Paul mentions them befroe there was a “Catholic” Church.

As the Gospels were writen they were considered Scripture and were never in question…

Nonsense**. There were more than a dozen “Gospels” and not all were considered Scripture by all, that is.**
It took the Authority of the Church to declare the canon. Same goes with the the Epistles. There were dozens of those, as well, but the Authority of the Church and the promise of Christ in John 16:12-15 trumped the nay-sayers.

The Scripture Luther questioned were also questioned by some of the early Church fathers.

And none of those people were protected by infallibility. If Luther had his way - you’d be reading a much smaller Bible today than you do. It’s only because of the prodding of his contemporaries that he eventually settled. AND, it’s only because of the Canon declared by the Catholic Church that you even have the Bible you have now - albeit an “edited” version

 

[RedBert]

Consider Polycarp: (ca. 69 – ca. 155)
With Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp is regarded as one of three chief Apostolic Fathers. The sole surviving work attributed to his authorship is his Letter to the Philippians;

Polycarp’s Letter to the Philippians (often simply called To the Philippians) composed around 110 to 140 AD is described by Irenaeus as follows:
There is also a forceful epistle written by Polycarp to the Philippians, from which those who wish to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth

In his letter to Philiipians: Chpter 12

supakoo.com/rick/PolycarpToPhilippians-2010-01-05.pdf

Note he uses the term Scriptures:
Note what New Testament books he is quoting or referencing…

Questions:
How did Polycarp know those letters were Scripture?
What Church degree or council had decided that by 140AD?

12
For I am confident that you are well versed in the Scriptures, and nothing is hid from you; but to me this is not granted. Only, as it is said in these Scriptures,** “be angry but do not sin,”64** and “do not let the sun go down on your anger.”65 Blessed is the one who remembers this, and I believe that it is so with you. Now may God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal Priest himself, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, build you up in faith and truth, and in all gentleness, and without wrath, and in patience, and in longsuffering, and endurance, and purity, and may he give you a share and place with his saints, and to us with you, and to all under heaven who shall believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead. Pray for all the saints.66 Pray also for the kings, and for magistrates, and princes, and for those who persecute you and hate you,67

64 [XR] Eph 4.26, quoting Ps 4.5
65 [XR] Eph 4.26
66 [XR] 1Ti 2.1
67 [XR] Mt 5.44

 

[RedBert]

Consider Irenaeus

The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being **the only legitimate gospels **was written c. 180 AD. was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic “Against the Heresies,”

Questions:
How did Irenaeus know those writings were Scripture?
What Church degree or council had decided that by 180AD?

 

[RedBert]

Note ALL the dates that are prior to 540 AD
Main article: Development of the New Testament canon -wiki

The writings attributed to the apostles circulated amongst the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating in collected form by the end of the first century AD.

Justin Martyr, in the early second century, mentions the “memoirs of the apostles,” which Christians called “gospels” and which were regarded as on par with the Old Testament. **A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was in place by the time of Irenaeus, c. 160, **who refers to it directly. He also quotes and cites 21 books that would end up as part of the New Testament, the excluded ones being Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude.

By the early 200’s, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation, see also Antilegomena.

Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christian authorities by the middle of the second century.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon, and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them. The African Synod of Hippo, in **393, approved the New Testament, **as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was confirmed by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.

These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.

Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above, or if not the list is at least a sixth century compilation. Likewise, Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, circa 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.

In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."