The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[NotTooSmart]

…unless you also want to say that the Catholic church gave us the inquisition and the priest sex abuse scandals.

The point being that you can not take credit for the positive while at the same time pass the buck on the negative. A little consistency on this please.

 

[Tomster]

…unless you also want to say that the Catholic church gave us the inquisition and the priest sex abuse scandals.

The point being that you can not take credit for the positive while at the same time pass the buck on the negative. A little consistency on this please.

I think you need to bone up on the history of the Inquisition and also realize the Church did not give us the priest sex abuse scandals (hint: individual priests who succumbed to sin gave the Church the sex abuse scandals).

As far as the title of the thread is concerned, you also need to bone up on the history of the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the history of the New Testament.

It appears you have allowed your ears to be tickeled by some serious misinformation.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Not only is he misinformed, and uneducated in the faith, he truly believes this.
But with his posting this, only shows how hard it is for non-Catholics to accept this to be true.

 

[Tomster]

Not only is he misinformed, and uneducated in the faith, he truly believes this.
But with his posting this, only shows how hard it is for non-Catholics to accept this to be true.

So much for “Christian: Pentecostal / Charismatic”, fallible, oral tradition!

 

[1edyson]

How can one compare the canonization of scripture to sex scandals, and the Inquisition? And not denying that either of things didn’t happen, they did, the church is made up of sinners, how does that detract from the FACT that it was the Catholic Church that held the counsels that determined which books were inspired, we’re your Charismatic Churches leaders around then, or did you church pop up in the last decade, or even century? And Imagine for one second that if YOUR church did have sex scandals, and something even minor related to an “Inquisition”, would YOUR church have survived, or would it have split, heck, if you had a popular church figure disagree with a pastor and start his/her own church, would YOUR church survive? The mere fact that the Catholic Church does have certain dark pasts, and being around for 2000 years it, filled with people and sinners its bound to have some black sheep, and that IT IS STILL HERE is a testament to the fact that God is with Her. But to the point the reference to sex scandals and an Inquisition as detracting from the Church determining which books are inspired or not, its not even an argument. I’ll keep you in my prayers, you have a lot of demons.

 

[steg]

I think you need to bone up on the history of the Inquisition and also realize the Church did not give us the priest sex abuse scandals (hint: individual priests who succumbed to sin gave the Church the sex abuse scandals).

As far as the title of the thread is concerned, you also need to bone up on the history of the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the history of the New Testament.

It appears you have allowed your ears to be tickeled by some serious misinformation.

Before the 12th century, the Catholic Church already suppressed what it saw as heresy, usually through a system of ecclesiastical proscription or imprisonment, but rarely directly resorting to torture or executions — this form of punishment had many ecclesiastical opponents, although some non-secular countries punished heresy with the death penalty.

In the 12th century, in order to counter the spread of Catharism, prosecution of heretics became more frequent. The Church charged councils composed of bishops and archbishops with establishing inquisitions.

In the 13th century, Pope Gregory IX (reigned 1227–1241) assigned the duty of carrying out inquisitions to the Dominican Order. Inquisitors acted in the name of the Pope and with his full authority. They used inquisitorial procedures, a legal practice common at that time. They judged heresy alone, using the local authorities to establish a tribunal and to prosecute heretics. After the end of the twelfth century, a Grand Inquisitor headed each Inquisition. Inquisition in this way persisted until the 19th century.

The sex scandal is not the fact that individual priests ‘succumbed to sin’… the scandal is that the church covered it up and moved these offenders from parish to parish, and did not contact the proper authorities.

All NT books were NOT written before 100CE… and the editting and revision continued for quite some time afterwards.

 

[Tomster]

How can one compare the canonization of scripture to sex scandals, and the Inquisition? And not denying that either of things didn’t happen, they did, the church is made up of sinners, how does that detract from the FACT that it was the Catholic Church that held the counsels that determined which books were inspired, we’re your Charismatic Churches leaders around then, or did you church pop up in the last decade, or even century? And Imagine for one second that if YOUR church did have sex scandals, and something even minor related to an “Inquisition”, would YOUR church have survived, or would it have split, heck, if you had a popular church figure disagree with a pastor and start his/her own church, would YOUR church survive? The mere fact that the Catholic Church does have certain dark pasts, and being around for 2000 years it, filled with people and sinners its bound to have some black sheep, and that IT IS STILL HERE is a testament to the fact that God is with Her. But to the point the reference to sex scandals and an Inquisition as detracting from the Church determining which books are inspired or not, its not even an argument. I’ll keep you in my prayers, you have a lot of demons.

And a big “Amen” to that!

 

[Tomster]

Before the 12th century, the Catholic Church already suppressed what it saw as heresy, usually through a system of ecclesiastical proscription or imprisonment, but rarely directly resorting to torture or executions — this form of punishment had many ecclesiastical opponents, although some non-secular countries punished heresy with the death penalty.

In the 12th century, in order to counter the spread of Catharism, prosecution of heretics became more frequent. The Church charged councils composed of bishops and archbishops with establishing inquisitions.

In the 13th century, Pope Gregory IX (reigned 1227–1241) assigned the duty of carrying out inquisitions to the Dominican Order. Inquisitors acted in the name of the Pope and with his full authority. They used inquisitorial procedures, a legal practice common at that time. They judged heresy alone, using the local authorities to establish a tribunal and to prosecute heretics. After the end of the twelfth century, a Grand Inquisitor headed each Inquisition. Inquisition in this way persisted until the 19th century.

The sex scandal is not the fact that individual priests ‘succumbed to sin’… the scandal is that the church covered it up and moved these offenders from parish to parish, and did not contact the proper authorities.

All NT books were NOT written before 100CE… and the editting and revision continued from quite some time afterwards.

The point being is that the Catholic Church did not GIVE us the scandals. The priests in question committed the sins on their own. The cover up only made matters worse.

BTW - Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, some of those priests who committed these crimes sincerely repented to their bishop, made a good confession and were absolved in the sacrament of Penance? If that had happened, the seal of confession was in effect and the bishop could not discuss the matter with anyone?

---

Faith without works is dead faith.

Works without faith are dead works.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I think you need to bone up on the history of the Inquisition and also realize the Church did not give us the priest sex abuse scandals (hint: individual priests who succumbed to sin gave the Church the sex abuse scandals).

Then by your same logic, it was individuals who gave us the Bible, not the church.

 

[NotTooSmart]

I’ll keep you in my prayers, you have a lot of demons.

Wow.

I mean wow.

I thought as a Christian I had the Holy Spirit of God.

All I ask is for some consistency in what you take credit for as opposed to what you pass the buck on to others.

So instead, I have demons.

When you can’t use reason, you can always fall back on personal attacks.

Oh I am sorry. I forgot this was the ONE TRUE CHURCH I am dealing with here.

This is great stuff.

 

[steg]

BTW - Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, some of those priests who committed these crimes sincerely repented to their bishop, made a good confession and were absolved in the sacrament of Penance? If that had happened, the seal of confession was in effect and the bishop could not discuss the matter with anyone?

That is the scariest thing I’ve heard yet… the church and its rules should never supercede the law. If they ‘sincerely repented’ then why did they contnue to offend over and over at other places? Hiding behind this confession thing is the lamest excuse, and in my opinion, makes the one who heard this confession and did nothing is just as guilty as the offender himself… they both should be locked away.

 

[Tomster]

Then by your same logic, it was individuals who gave us the Bible, not the church.

It was the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, who separated which Books should be in the Bible and those books which were to be excluded and canonised the former as authentic.

The next time you open your Bible thank the Catholic Church for giving it to you.

 

[Tomster]

That is the scariest thing I’ve heard yet… the church and its rules should never supercede the law. If they ‘sincerely repented’ then why did they contnue to offend over and over at other places? Hiding behind this confession thing is the lamest excuse, and in my opinion, makes the one who heard this confession and did nothing is just as guilty as the offender himself… they both should be locked away.

Who says they ALL continued in the practice?

And, sorry, Church law supercedes civil law in regards to the seal of confession. Ask any lawyer.

 

[celticsfan1983]

How is this even logical? Because bad things happened makes something that actually happened non existent. Point A couldn’ve happened because Point B and Point C are not recognized?

So something that has been fact for centuries is no longer true because of other negative things that came up long after the first fact was established?

Take out all the religious aspects, and your still left with an extremely flawed argument.

 

[Tomster]

Wow.

I mean wow.

I thought as a Christian I had the Holy Spirit of God.

All I ask is for some consistency in what you take credit for as opposed to what you pass the buck on to others.

So instead, I have demons.

When you can’t use reason, you can always fall back on personal attacks.

Oh I am sorry. I forgot this was the ONE TRUE CHURCH I am dealing with here.

This is great stuff.

Yes, you are dealing with the One True Church here. And, yes, it is great stuff.

 

[1edyson]

Then by your same logic, it was individuals who gave us the Bible, not the church.

No, **God **gave us the Bible **THROUGH **the Church, the body of Christ here on earth, because as it says in 1Tim 3:15, it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of truth. Because without an authentic interpreter of what is Truth, we can be led astray, like Martin Luther who threw out 7 books, no matter how good and well our intentions lead us to believe.

 

[Cat]

To the OP,

I was born and raised evangelical Protestant. Evelyn Christenson was my pastor’s wife, and Gary Smalley was my associate pastor. John Ortberg grew up with me in my youth group; I played piano for him many times. Dr. Erwin Lutzer was a regular speaker at our church, as was Dr. Bill Bright, Josh McDowell, and Stuart and Jill Briscoe.

If you are evangelical Protestant, those names should be very familiar to you. I list them only to demonstrate to you that I grew up in an excellent evangelical church and had the best of Christian education.

I would recommend a book called Church History in Plain Language by Bruce L. Shelley. Dr. Shelley is a Protestant history professor at Denver Theological Seminary, and this book is a Protestant version of the history of the Christian Church.

Interestingly, it does not contradict Catholic versions of the history of the Church. I’ve read the book cover to cover three times, and I’ve referred to it hundreds of times. I took it with me to a class on the history of the Catholic Church offered one semester several years ago, to “check the facts” and seek out contradictions between Catholic and Protestant versions of history. There were no contradictions. Dr. Shelley said exactly the same thing in his book that the Catholic professor said.

History is history, grounded in facts, dates, events, people, places.

According to Dr. Shelley, the Catholic Church did indeed give us the Bible.

Chapter 6 of the book explains the process by which the final canon of Scripture was selected, and Dr. Shelley states in conclusion that "the first complete list of books as we have them today came in an Easter letter written in 367 A.D by Bishop Athanasius from Alexandria. Shortly thereafter councils in North Africa at Hippo (393 A.D.) and at Carthage (397 A.D.) published the same list.

I hope that you (and for that matter, anyone else who is interested, including Catholics!) will read this excellent book. It is written at a level that is very understandable even for those of us who are not intellectual history scholars. Dr. Shelley writes in a conversational style, as though he is telling a story, yet the book is thoroughly documented and well-researched with a long list of sources and footnotes.

 

[Tomster]

How is this even logical? Because bad things happened makes something that actually happened non existent. Point A couldn’ve happened because Point B and Point C are not recognized?

So something that has been fact for centuries is no longer true because of other negative things that came up long after the first fact was established?

Take out all the religious aspects, and your still left with an extremely flawed argument.

That’s what happens when emotionalism trumps reason my friend.

 

[1edyson]

Wow.

I mean wow.

I thought as a Christian I had the Holy Spirit of God.

.

AS a Christian, we are even more so under attack of Demons, we ALL have them I have them, because just as Heaven rejoices when ONE sinner repents, All of Hell rejoices when one Christian falls. That’s why we’re in constant prayer for one another…or do you deny that the devil exists, you’re a Pentecostal Charismatic, and pardon me for generalizing, but when I think that I think of Pastors casting out demons all the time, I’d think you’d understand.

And again WE DO NOT DENY that these horrible things happened in the church, though we may correct the level of peoples misunderstanding of them, and again the mere fact that they did happen, and here we are still standing strong is a testament of God with his Church.

 

[Newbie2]

Then by your same logic, it was individuals who gave us the Bible, not the church.

You have a very bizzare sense of logic, NTS.

Show us documentation in the RCC that says Priestly abuse and the Inquisition are OK? You don’t need to look very far to see that the RCC embraces holy Scripture.

The horrors of Priestly abuse and the Inquisition are not things that one “takes credit for”, rather “shoulders the blame for”. And the RCC takes responsibility for the sinful, misguided individuals involved in these abuses.

So, no. We reject your premise that we should “take credit” for these things. No Catholic is perfect, from the Pope on down. We make mistakes, some of them terrible mistakes. Fallen human nature does not change the simple fact that Christ instituted the Church and gave her the gift of Scripture.

BTW, were do you see us “passing the buck”?