The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[ufamtobie]

…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

Hi there NotTooSmart,

What about Judas the Betrayer? He was an Apostle for crying out loud! Jesus Christ had already given the Keys to Peter before Judas betrayed our Lord. My point is Judas committed a far worse sin than any priest has done and yet the Catholic Church still stands for the gates of hell will not prevail over it!

Nottoosmart, this is how we know that the sin that Judas committed is far worse than all the combined molestation in the Catholic Church, (read Mark 14: 21) 21 And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born

People like yourself who are not to smart lol (joking) However true, are the People that our Lord was talking about, when He said: “The Gates of Hell will not prevail over it!” Yes, people like yourself are the gates of HELL who try to put down the Catholic Church and have been doing so for centuries and yet, “IT” still stands and yes Jesus Christ is correct WHEN HE SPEAKS ABOUT YOU, yes YOU, that YOU will not prevail over it!

Nottosmart, Let me make you smart, understand this, Don’t think that Jesus Christ was only reffering to the DEMONS that cannot prevail over his church, it is also people like yourself who go against the Catholic Church, that will never prevail over IT.

One can say that there has been scandal for the begining starting with Judas in the Catholic Church. Yeah, Men sin, but never, NEVER the Moral Authoritive Teachings of the Catholic Church now this is what Jesus Christ Meant!

Ufam Tobie,

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Hi there NotTooSmart,

What about Judas the Betrayer? He was an Apostle for crying out loud! Jesus Christ had already given the Keys to Peter before Judas betrayed our Lord. My point is Judas committed a far worse sin than any priest has done and yet the Catholic Church still stands for the gates of hell will not prevail over it!

Nottoosmart, this is how we know that the sin that Judas committed is far worse than all the combined molestation in the Catholic Church, (read Mark 14: 21) 21 And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born

People like yourself who are not to smart lol (joking) However true, are the People that our Lord was talking about, when He said: “The Gates of Hell will not prevail over it!” Yes, people like yourself are the gates of HELL who try to put down the Catholic Church and have been doing so for centuries and yet, “IT” still stands and yes Jesus Christ is correct WHEN HE SPEAKS ABOUT YOU, yes YOU, that YOU will not prevail over it!

Nottosmart, Let me make you smart, understand this, Don’t think that Jesus Christ was only reffering to the DEMONS that cannot prevail over his church, it is also people like yourself who go against the Catholic Church, that will never prevail over IT.

One can say that there has been scandal for the begining starting with Judas in the Catholic Church. Yeah, Men sin, but never, NEVER the Moral Authoritive Teachings of the Catholic Church now this is what Jesus Christ Meant!

Ufam Tobie,

Very well said

 

[NotTooSmart]

So then, in your position, what is it that the Church does? Or is everything completely individualistic? The good, the bad, and the indifferent?

God bless

Good question. I must admit that I haven’t thought this one through.

I can’t find any precedence in Scripture where any actions of individuals become actions of “the church”. Now maybe there is though and I am not aware of it. Yet there is precedence in the OT where the sins of individuals become collective sins (at least I am fairly sure there is…I would have to look it up) and where God calls the people collectively to return to him for the sins of individuals.

Yup there is precedence… The sin of Achan in the OT. This is where one little person took things under the band. And God punished the whole nation because of this. The response of God in Joshua 7:11 was “Isreal has sinned and they have also transgressed My covenant…” And God called Israel to consecrate themselves to the Lord. All for the actions of 1 guy who was not even a leader.

Hmm interesting. Haven’t thought of this angle. Maybe there is more a collective aspect to this than what I thought. I will have to mull this one a little. But in any case, to be consistent one must have a consistent view of both the evil and good.

 

[NotTooSmart]

No one said that Catholics WROTE it. They have said, accurately, that the RCC CONMPILED it. What’s your deal? Are you to just stir up stuff?

Not at all.

Here is how it happened. In your Sola Scriptura thread-du-jour I would read how the Catholic church gave us the Bible so therefore only the Catholic church has the right to interpret the Bible. In your priest sex abuse thread-du-jour I would read how this was not the Catholic church but only sinning members in the church.

Then one day I had a brain cramp and asked myself the silly question on why these two are different.

Obviously I have demons because I asked myself this silly question and had the gall to pose it on these forums. Maybe I should just shut up and keep my silly questions to myself instead of having the gall to question THE ONE TRUE CHURCH.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Yes, people like yourself are the gates of HELL who try to put down the Catholic Church and have been doing so for centuries and yet, “IT” still stands and yes Jesus Christ is correct WHEN HE SPEAKS ABOUT YOU, yes YOU, that YOU will not prevail over it!

So now in addition to having lots of demons I am “the gates of HELL”!

Too bad I can’t edit my post where I have been getting these priceless responses.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Asking question as this I,l bet you got good mark in History and it looks like you not much at reading a new paper or are you just slow.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Thought of a better answer to this question.

So to you the Church is ONLY individuals within it and nothing more?

Why does it have to be either/or?

Why can’t both be true? In other words the word church has both a individual dimension and a corporate dimension.

Anyway, I have no idea what bearing this has on this thread. Whatever the meaning of church is, I do not believe that one denomination is “the church”.

 

[Cat]

Actually if I am reading you correctly, Dr. Shelley is only saying that men in the Catholic church gave us the Bible (unless of course you can provide a statement "the Catholic church gave us the Bible). And I am fine with men in the Catholic church or Catholics gave us the Bible. Then we can say that men in the Catholic church of Catholics gave us the priest sex abuse scandals.

All I am asking for is some consistency here.

(Now I do have some issues with the Catholic church taking total credit for the apostolic church when the fact is that it is common to both of our histories. But … hmm… I will lay that aside. I can live with just consistency between the two for now.

The two councils where the Scriptural Canon was compiled were official Church Councils, hence the statement, “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.” Men certainly did the physical work of compiling the list (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), but it was “the Church” through the Council that approved of the lists and distributed it to churches all over the world.

 

[Bill_Pick]

God help this person and keep him/her in your prays, The good abut this post is the person handle and boy it is right on the money NotTooSmart,say bye

 

[Stephen168]

Thought of a better answer to this question.

Why does it have to be either/or?

Why can’t both be true? In other words the word church has both a individual dimension and a corporate dimension.

Anyway, I have no idea what bearing this has on this thread. Whatever the meaning of church is, I do not believe that one denomination is “the church”.

The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament. The Catholic Church is a group of Bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome with teaching authority. We are not talking about your imagined definition of ‘the church’ or even ‘a church’; we are talking about the Catholic Church which decided in the 4th century which writings were going to be included in the New Testament. Until you understand what the Catholic Church is; you will never understand why your perceived inconsistency is not inconsistent at all.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

NotTooSmart:

You seem to have a bit of trouble distinguishing between a coalition of people working together for a common goal and individual people’s behavior who just so happen to be members of said coalition. In this lies the problem of your misunderstanding and conflation of the sex scandals and canonization of scripture.

It is not the Catholic’s (nor the historian’s) position that any individual or individuals acting independently canonized the Bible, rather councils of the Church were convened in which the canon was established, then affirmed, and then reaffirmed. This is like a big board meeting. The results of such a board meeting indeed are “fair ground” for judging the organization. The fact that some members of the board, after the meeting go out to a bar, get sloshed, pick up some hookers and take them to a hotel is inconsequential to what one could say about the organization.

The only way one could compare the sex scandals of individual priests and even the cover up by individual bishops with the canonization of the Bible (or any other dogmatic decree which came forth from a council) would be if the Catholic Church convened another council or the Pope spoke ex cathedra claiming that sexual impropriety is morally OK or exemplary of the Church.

The Catholic Church has never issued such decrees, convened such councils, nor has the Pope ever utilized his Petrine prerogative to claim such. This is where your comparisons and “calls for consistency” fail.

You’re absolutely correct in stating that if the Church expects to be able to take ownership of the good that individuals do, she must also take ownership of the bad that individuals do. However, individual actions are not in question here with respect to canonization of scripture. It was never something wrought by an individual!

Does this finally make sense to you?

You seem to think well in analogies, so allow me to appeal to the governance of the United States:

If our congress were to meet, propose a law, vote on said law, and pass it, it would indeed be proper to say that the United States has done something. If some members of congress were then to leave chambers and commit a crime which that same congress had deemed illegal it would be improper to say that the United States has committed that crime. Likewise, if some members of congress after that session closed were to go out and do some charity, work in a soup kitchen, pick up stray kittens, hand out coats to the homeless, etc. it would be incorrect to say that the United States did those benevolent things precisely because “The United States” is defined by the coalition of representation.

The United States can “declare a war”, however the United States cannot “get drunk”. Likewise, the Catholic Church can (and did) “canonize the Bible”, however the Catholic cannot (and did not) “molest children”.

Does this make sense yet?

 

[NotTooSmart]

God help this person and keep him/her in your prays, The good abut this post is the person handle and boy it is right on the money NotTooSmart,say bye

And now ladies and gentlement.

Another updates list of invectives, insults, and other charitable remarks directed towards me by the ONE TRUE CHURCH.

This is so great. I gotta find a way to put this in my signature somehow.

What a piece of work. You sure did choose your username well.

You make zero sense and you know it,

yet you just want to troll and (successfully) get a rise out of people for who knows what reason?

I don’t think you even care about those that were abused:

Yes, people like yourself are the gates of HELL who try to put down the Catholic Church and have been doing so for centuries and yet, “IT” still stands and yes Jesus Christ is correct WHEN HE SPEAKS ABOUT YOU, yes YOU, that YOU will not prevail over it!

Asking question as this I,l bet you got good mark in History and it looks like you not much at reading a new paper or are you just slow.

God help this person and keep him/her in your prays, The good abut this post is the person handle and boy it is right on the money NotTooSmart,say bye

But the winner still is

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

 

[NotTooSmart]

NotTooSmart:

You seem to have a bit of trouble distinguishing between a coalition of people working together for a common goal and individual people’s behavior who just so happen to be members of said coalition. In this lies the problem of your misunderstanding and conflation of the sex scandals and canonization of scripture.

It is not the Catholic’s (nor the historian’s) position that any individual or individuals acting independently canonized the Bible, rather councils of the Church were convened in which the canon was established, then affirmed, and then reaffirmed. This is like a big board meeting. The results of such a board meeting indeed are “fair ground” for judging the organization. The fact that some members of the board, after the meeting go out to a bar, get sloshed, pick up some hookers and take them to a hotel is inconsequential to what one could say about the organization.

The only way one could compare the sex scandals of individual priests and even the cover up by individual bishops with the canonization of the Bible (or any other dogmatic decree which came forth from a council) would be if the Catholic Church convened another council or the Pope spoke ex cathedra claiming that sexual impropriety is morally OK or exemplary of the Church.

The Catholic Church has never issued such decrees, convened such councils, nor has the Pope ever utilized his Petrine prerogative to claim such. This is where your comparisons and “calls for consistency” fail.

You’re absolutely correct in stating that if the Church expects to be able to take ownership of the good that individuals do, she must also take ownership of the bad that individuals do. However, individual actions are not in question here with respect to canonization of scripture. It was never something wrought by an individual!

Does this finally make sense to you?

You seem to think well in analogies, so allow me to appeal to the governance of the United States:

If our congress were to meet, propose a law, vote on said law, and pass it, it would indeed be proper to say that the United States has done something. If some members of congress were then to leave chambers and commit a crime which that same congress had deemed illegal it would be improper to say that the United States has committed that crime. Likewise, if some members of congress after that session closed were to go out and do some charity, work in a soup kitchen, pick up stray kittens, hand out coats to the homeless, etc. it would be incorrect to say that the United States did those benevolent things precisely because “The United States” is defined by the coalition of representation.

The United States can “declare a war”, however the United States cannot “get drunk”. Likewise, the Catholic Church can (and did) “canonize the Bible”, however the Catholic cannot (and did not) “molest children”.

Does this make sense yet?

Finally 111 posts later, and all of the charitable compliments that I received in the previous post that I am so grateful for (they are so great that they have to go to my signature), I get a good response. Now there were a couple other good responses, but most were just complementing me for my brilliant name and other choice compliments.

However, it is getting very late and I am getting very tired so I can’t think this one through very well. I am going to bed.

But the rest of you keep your insu–mmm complements coming. They will make a “greaaaat” signature.

 

[lucky_boi]

Thought of a better answer to this question.

Why does it have to be either/or?

Why can’t both be true? In other words the word church has both a individual dimension and a corporate dimension.

Anyway, I have no idea what bearing this has on this thread. Whatever the meaning of church is, I do not believe that one denomination is “the church”.

As per your OP:

The Catholic church did not give us the Bible … unless you also want to say that the Catholic church gave us the inquisition and the priest sex abuse scandals.

Perhaps a clarification of the definition of “Catholic church” is in order. As with any debate, definitions must be understood before discourse can occur. So you see, it is relevant per your question.

Do you view the church as individual christian persons practising the faith? Or do you mean it in your argument to be a “the faithful” in general ie a collective body with shared belief.

The latter gave us the bible and the magisterium (as agreed upon by the faithful, or representation of the faithful, guided by the Holy Spirit); the former well… individuals sin, and of course the scandals you mention occured.

A simple case of equivocation. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)

Do note that your OP statement per se is factual, but not truthful, since your definition of church changes.

 

[Clark_Gabriel]

**HI,

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND,
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CANNOT TAKE CREDIT FOR COMPILING, TRANSLATING AND GIVING OUT THE BIBLE BECAUSE OF WHAT SOME PEOPLE INSIDE HER HAS DONE.

AM I RIGHT, NotTooSmart?
**

 

[Hisalone]

**HI,

FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND,
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CANNOT TAKE CREDIT FOR COMPILING, TRANSLATING AND GIVING OUT THE BIBLE BECAUSE OF WHAT SOME PEOPLE INSIDE HER HAS DONE.

AM I RIGHT, NotTooSmart?
**

You dont ave to use bold on all your type.
Half the bible was written before Christ.

 

[NotTooSmart]

**hi,

from what i understand,
the catholic church cannot take credit for compiling, translating and giving out the bible because of what some people inside her has done.

Am i right, nottoosmart?
**

no, that is not what i am saying

 

[NotTooSmart]

As per your OP:

The Catholic church did not give us the Bible … unless you also want to say that the Catholic church gave us the inquisition and the priest sex abuse scandals.

Perhaps a clarification of the definition of “Catholic church” is in order. As with any debate, definitions must be understood before discourse can occur. So you see, it is relevant per your question.

Do you view the church as individual christian persons practising the faith? Or do you mean it in your argument to be a “the faithful” in general ie a collective body with shared belief.

The latter gave us the bible and the magisterium (as agreed upon by the faithful, or representation of the faithful, guided by the Holy Spirit); the former well… individuals sin, and of course the scandals you mention occured.

A simple case of equivocation. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)

Do note that your OP statement per se is factual, but not truthful, since your definition of church changes.

I mean it to be both. I will respond to this and other similar posts in one above yours.

 

[Newbie2]

What you can not be though, is to have it both ways, to take credit for the positive and pass the buck on the negative.

If it was individual priests who were guilty of the sex scandals and that did not follow the guidance of the Spirit and did NOT FOLLOW THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH.

Then

It was individuals who followed the guidance of the Spirit in the canon of the Scripture. The Spirit worked through the willing cooperation of these individuals. The canon WAS NOT WRITTEN WITHOUT their cooperation.

That’s being consistent.

OK…if the RCC compiled it, then the RCC did the sex abuse scandals.

Now I really think that men in the Catholic church compiled it.

My deal?

I have observed an inconsistency. When it comes to the positive in the history of the Church like the Bible, the Church takes credit for it. When it comes to the negative in the history of the Church, it is men and the Church has no part of it.

Now I think the better answer in both cases is that men in the Catholic church are responsible for both the positive and negative, but I can live with the other too.

Where do you see this happening? The abuse scandal is being dealt with…yes, it was bungled at the start, but is being much better addresses now. And once again, I say that one does not take “credit for” a negative happening, rather one takes “the blame”.

If the church owns the bad, then it can own the good. I am fair.

But all that I read in these priest sex abuse threads is that the church does not own the bad. It is the responsibililty of individual Catholics and not the church.

That is where the inconsistency lies.

Can you explain in a differenty way what you mean by “own the bad”?

No, you need to address the excellent posts above. You ARE insisting on holding the Church to simply a ‘collection of individuals’. If that were the case, then yes, individuals do good and individuals do ill. . .

But the Church is NOT simply a collection of individuals (Scripture supports this. Please read carefully and note Christ’s words, especially when He refers to it as being spotless and without sin.)

You’re attempting to make it something it’s not–purely an ‘earthly’ group of people, some good, some bad, some indifferent. That’s only part. It has a heavenly part as well. . .and nothing evil can be a part of heaven. So. . .

I agree. That is the where the crux of the disagreement in this thread lies, methinks.

I must be really a nitwit…

And now ladies and gentlement.

Another updates list of invectives, insults, and other charitable remarks directed towards me by the ONE TRUE CHURCH.

This is so great. I gotta find a way to put this in my signature somehow.

But the winner still is

OK, can we get back to the topic or did you “troll” this thread to get some “choice” responses?

 

[NotTooSmart]

NotTooSmart:

You seem to have a bit of trouble distinguishing between a coalition of people working together for a common goal and individual people’s behavior who just so happen to be members of said coalition. In this lies the problem of your misunderstanding and conflation of the sex scandals and canonization of scripture.

It is not the Catholic’s (nor the historian’s) position that any individual or individuals acting independently canonized the Bible, rather councils of the Church were convened in which the canon was established, then affirmed, and then reaffirmed. This is like a big board meeting. The results of such a board meeting indeed are “fair ground” for judging the organization. The fact that some members of the board, after the meeting go out to a bar, get sloshed, pick up some hookers and take them to a hotel is inconsequential to what one could say about the organization.

The only way one could compare the sex scandals of individual priests and even the cover up by individual bishops with the canonization of the Bible (or any other dogmatic decree which came forth from a council) would be if the Catholic Church convened another council or the Pope spoke ex cathedra claiming that sexual impropriety is morally OK or exemplary of the Church.

The Catholic Church has never issued such decrees, convened such councils, nor has the Pope ever utilized his Petrine prerogative to claim such. This is where your comparisons and “calls for consistency” fail.

You’re absolutely correct in stating that if the Church expects to be able to take ownership of the good that individuals do, she must also take ownership of the bad that individuals do. However, individual actions are not in question here with respect to canonization of scripture. It was never something wrought by an individual!

Does this finally make sense to you?

You seem to think well in analogies, so allow me to appeal to the governance of the United States:

If our congress were to meet, propose a law, vote on said law, and pass it, it would indeed be proper to say that the United States has done something. If some members of congress were then to leave chambers and commit a crime which that same congress had deemed illegal it would be improper to say that the United States has committed that crime. Likewise, if some members of congress after that session closed were to go out and do some charity, work in a soup kitchen, pick up stray kittens, hand out coats to the homeless, etc. it would be incorrect to say that the United States did those benevolent things precisely because “The United States” is defined by the coalition of representation.

The United States can “declare a war”, however the United States cannot “get drunk”. Likewise, the Catholic Church can (and did) “canonize the Bible”, however the Catholic cannot (and did not) “molest children”.

Does this make sense yet?

First of all, thank you for responding without all of the complements that I have received from other posters. Although the complements really are in reality priceless.

I had to cut your post due to space.

You lay out two alternatives:

You seem to have a bit of trouble distinguishing between a coalition of people working together for a common goal and individual people’s behavior who just so happen to be members of said coalition.

But what we have here is a third option: individual people’s evil behaviour in the process of representing the said coalition.

Under this third option we have two sub-conditions

• with the knowledge and approval of the coalition
• without the knowledge and approval of the coalition

And actually these are two poles of a scale. You might have the coalition explicitely authorizing such behavior, implicitely authorizing such behavior, turning a blind eye to such behavior, covering up such behavior when it occurs, etc.

One other thing. We will assume that said coalition in essence is good coalition and has laws against such behavior.

Now if you are a victim of this evil behavior by one individual in the process of representing the said coalition, it does not matter if this individual was a high-level leader, a low-level peon, with the approval of the coalition or without the approval of the coalition. Just because your perpetrator did it in the name of the coalition is enough for you as a victim to ascribe guilt to said coalition.

Our legal system operates under these rules. If I am a victim of wrongful behavior by one member of the coalition acting on behalf of the coalition, I can suit the coalition for damages. And get awarded big bucks. And that is happening with the assorted suits victims of the priest sex abuse scandals are bringing against the Catholic Church (not to mention the suits against McDonalds for its operatives spilling coffee).

To cite another example, the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Now as far as we know this was done solely by low-level operatives in the US Army. Now there may or may not be some complicitness further up the food chain, but I don’t know.

But, this torture was done by representatives of the United States in the armed forces acting on behalf of the United States. So in this context, it is perfectly legitimate to say that the United States tortured Iraqi prisoners at Abu Grhaib.