Why did the RCC change the Bible?

[NotWorthy]

Our Lord permitted degrees of doubt on subjects he did not consider to be vital, the Magisterium did not. That was, and to some extent is the root cause of protestantism.

Where did our Lord permit doubt on what was taught?

If you consider the words, “Whoever hears you, hears me. And whoever rejects you, rejects me”(Paraphrasing), then to doubt the Magisterium’s authority is to doubt the Lord’s authority.

I think doubting the Magisterium’s authority is the root cause of Protestantism, and is the reason we have a whole hodge-podge of doctrine, as you described in your own way.

If Catholicity wants protestantism to return to the fold, then the Magisterium needs to relax more the permission to doubt.
It has gone a long way down that path, but there is much further to go.
I for one would love to return, but my doubts as yet cannot be overcome.

But the problem is, the Magisterium could not change any of it’s teachings in order to enable some group’s reunification, for it would open up a whole new can of worms. What else did the Church teach wrong? This would create a whole new level of Protestantism.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Where did our Lord permit doubt on what was taught?

Matthew 12: 31, 32:
Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

If you consider the words, “Whoever hears you, hears me. And whoever rejects you, rejects me”(Paraphrasing), then to doubt the Magisterium’s authority is to doubt the Lord’s authority.

I think doubting the Magisterium’s authority is the root cause of Protestantism, and is the reason we have a whole hodge-podge of doctrine, as you described in your own way.

But the problem is, the Magisterium could not change any of it’s teachings in order to enable some group’s reunification, for it would open up a whole new can of worms. What else did the Church teach wrong? This would create a whole new level of Protestantism.

I am not asking that the teachings be abandonned, just that the detail, which is not immediately essential, be left to be doubted, so long as it is not denied.
For instance, many protestants are deeply troubled by the status of Our Lady, as Mother of G_d. Indeed, it troubles me. I am happy with ‘Mother of Christ’, but then, that is a Nestorian profession, and I can sympathise with some Nestorian concepts. Indeed, Nestorius was only condemned when he was tricked into making claims which could be seen as gnostic.
But indeed, All this to-do was of the ilk of which Our Lord defined as forgivable in the quote given.
What Our Lord demanded of us was that we love one-another, as he loved/loves us.
That is central.
All else is peripheral.

 

[NotWorthy]

Matthew 12: 31, 32:
Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

The Catholic Church teaches forgiveness, too! But just like Jesus, you must repent in order to be forgiven!!!

I am not asking that the teachings be abandonned, just that the detail, which is not immediately essential, be left to be doubted, so long as it is not denied.
For instance, many protestants are deeply troubled by the status of Our Lady, as Mother of G_d. Indeed, it troubles me. I am happy with ‘Mother of Christ’, but then, that is a Nestorian profession, and I can sympathise with some Nestorian concepts. Indeed, Nestorius was only condemned when he was tricked into making claims which could be seen as gnostic.
But indeed, All this to-do was of the ilk of which Our Lord defined as forgivable in the quote given.
What Our Lord demanded of us was that we love one-another, as he loved/loves us.
That is central.
All else is peripheral.

And yes, we would forgive anybody with Nestorian ideaologies, even Nestor himself. But, again, one must repent.

Didn’t Paul discuss in numerous Epistles that those who willfully teach in error will be judged more harshly than the normal sinner?

That’s why the Church has to be so harsh on those that teach heresies.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The Catholic Church teaches forgiveness, too! But just like Jesus, you must repent in order to be forgiven!!!

Yes, I agree.

And yes, we would forgive anybody with Nestorian ideaologies, even Nestor himself. But, again, one must repent.

This is more difficult.
Nestorius was convinced in the rectitude of his argument.
This then is ‘invincible ignorance’ if indeed he was in error.
He did not go willfully into schism, but was cast out under the pretense of gnosticism.
That though is water under the bridge.
He did though teach, having been cast out, his heretical teachings.
This is not what I am talking about.

Didn’t Paul discuss in numerous Epistles that those who willfully teach in error will be judged more harshly than the normal sinner?

I have no arguement with this.

That’s why the Church has to be so harsh on those that teach heresies.

I am not asking that Mother Church goes easy on heretics, that is, those who teach heresy.
What I ask is that She permits doubt, and does not demand assertions that cannot be honestly given.
For instance, though I accept that BVM is the Mother of Christ, I cannot honestly assert that she is Mother of G_d, though I will not, and cannot deny that she might be.

 

[NotWorthy]

Yes, I agree.
This is more difficult.
Nestorius was convinced in the rectitude of his argument.
This then is ‘invincible ignorance’ if indeed he was in error.
He did not go willfully into schism, but was cast out under the pretense of gnosticism.
That though is water under the bridge.
He did though teach, having been cast out, his heretical teachings.
This is not what I am talking about.

Nestor was convinced he was right. So two or three brothers tried to convince him that he was wrong. They could not. So they took it to the Church.

I don’t see anywhere in Matthew 18 where it says the person can still claim “invincible ignorance”.

You see, Nestor, didn’t accept the teaching authority of the Church. And Matthew 18, in my view, shows that he was treated according to Scripture.

Again, if Nestor is teaching this against the Church’s authority, then he is doubly liable for his sins.

I have no arguement with this.
I am not asking that Mother Church goes easy on heretics, that is, those who teach heresy.
What I ask is that She permits doubt, and does not demand assertions that cannot be honestly given.

Doubt is understandable. Teaching the doubtful thoughts against the Church’s urgings crosses the line.

for instance, though I accept that BVM is the Mother of Christ, I cannot honestly assert that she is Mother of G_d, though I will not, and cannot deny that she might be.

And you have every right to believe that. But if you were a priest, as I believe Nestor is, and you went and taught that this is a false teachings, then you should be treated as a Gentile or a tax collector.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Nestor was convinced he was right. So two or three brothers tried to convince him that he was wrong. They could not. So they took it to the Church.

I don’t see anywhere in Matthew 18 where it says the person can still claim “invincible ignorance”.

No, it does not.
Invincible ignorance is defined elsewhere.
However, in the passage quoted, it is clear that Our lord is drawing a line between Venial Sin and Mortal Sin.
Contumely against The Son of Man was deemed by him to be Venial, whereas contumely against The Holy Spirit was deemed Mortal.

You see, Nestor, didn’t accept the teaching authority of the Church. And Matthew 18, in my view, shows that he was treated according to Scripture.

Again, if Nestor is teaching this against the Church’s authority, then he is doubly liable for his sins.

Doubt is understandable. Teaching the doubtful thoughts against the Church’s urgings crosses the line.

Yes I agree here completely.

And you have every right to believe that. But if you were a priest, as I believe Nestor is, and you went and taught that this is a false teachings, then you should be treated as a Gentile or a tax collector.

Are you telling me that my doubt and in some cases unbelief would not bar me, provided that I accepted that this doubt and unbelief was my fault, and that I did not teach doubt and unbelief?
Obviously the doubt and unbelief would need to be on a peripheral aspect.

BTW, invicible ignorance, as I understand it, involves an error which cannot be corrected by the best of teaching, either because of the imperfect operation of the errant’s brain, or because the errant is so utterly, and subconciously convinced of the rectitude of his(her) error, that (s)he cannot accept the veracity of the logic of the correct argument.
This would seem to cover Nestorius.
Also, according to the quote, his error was Venial.

 

[NotWorthy]

BTW, invicible ignorance, as I understand it, involves an error which cannot be corrected by the best of teaching, either because of the imperfect operation of the errant’s brain, or because the errant is so utterly, and subconciously convinced of the rectitude of his(her) error, that (s)he cannot accept the veracity of the logic of the correct argument.
This would seem to cover Nestorius.
Also, according to the quote, his error was Venial.

HIs error was not venial, if he taught something that he knew was against Church Doctrine.

That made Nestor’s sin most mortal, at least in my opinion.

 

[NotWorthy]

No, it does not.
Invincible ignorance is defined elsewhere.
However, in the passage quoted, it is clear that Our lord is drawing a line between Venial Sin and Mortal Sin.
Contumely against The Son of Man was deemed by him to be Venial, whereas contumely against The Holy Spirit was deemed Mortal.

Rats! Now I’m going to have to learn the word “contumely”.

But back to your point, contumely against the Holy Spirit is not the only Mortal Sin. Doesn’t Paul list in His Epistles things that kill the Spirit in all of us.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Rats! Now I’m going to have to learn the word “contumely”.

But back to your point, contumely against the Holy Spirit is not the only Mortal Sin. Doesn’t Paul list in His Epistles things that kill the Spirit in all of us.

I agree, but here Our Lord clearly divides sin into two divisions, which seem to correspond closely with Venial and Mortal.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

HIs error was not venial, if he taught something that he knew was against Church Doctrine.

That made Nestor’s sin most mortal, at least in my opinion.

I agree that from your viewpoint, the sin is Mortal, but from the viewpoint of Nestorius, he was not in error, there was a misunderstanding, mainly on the purported accusation of gnosticism, and Nestorius supported Rome against Arius, he just went a little too far.
It was a matter of emphasis rather than substance.
And in any case, the error of substance was Venial.
Excessive zeal in defining the undefineable is the biggest cause of schism.
This is why I do not like Credes.
The more detailed they are, the more exclusive they are.
If they are exclusive, then they are the cause of schism.
That which causes schism is a Mortal sin.

 

[NotWorthy]

I agree that from your viewpoint, the sin is Mortal, but from the viewpoint of Nestorius, he was not in error, there was a misunderstanding, mainly on the purported accusation of gnosticism, and Nestorius supported Rome against Arius, he just went a little too far.
It was a matter of emphasis rather than substance.
And in any case, the error of substance was Venial.
Excessive zeal in defining the undefineable is the biggest cause of schism.
This is why I do not like Credes.
The more detailed they are, the more exclusive they are.
If they are exclusive, then they are the cause of schism.
That which causes schism is a Mortal sin.

But the Creeds are created to help prevent further heresies.

Well, at least, until the Reformist ignore the creeds and tend to re-create the same heresies all over again.

So evidently, Nestorius grabbed the pendulum of truth (that Arius had swung too far in one direction) and swung it too far in the other direction. Hence the Creed was written to prevent the pendulum from swinging too far in either direction and the truth prevailed.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

But the Creeds are created to help prevent further heresies.

Well, at least, until the Reformist ignore the creeds and tend to re-create the same heresies all over again.

Well, which is worse:
That someone has a perception of The Divinity, which is at varience with the ‘orthodox’, and is tolerated as ‘one who sees things differently’?
or:
That this person is cast out with his heresy, and makes a schism in The Church?
We are after all is said and done, only talking about perceptions. The reality is beyond description, and one perception may be more meaningful to one person than another is to another.
Surely, as long as the strange perception does not lead to substantive error, then it should be tolerated.
Is this not the essence of What Our Lord was saying?

So evidently, Nestorius grabbed the pendulum of truth (that Arius had swung too far in one direction) and swung it too far in the other direction. Hence the Creed was written to prevent the pendulum from swinging too far in either direction and the truth prevailed.

Hey, we seem to be getting far off subject here.
The core question here is:
Did either the error of Arius, or that of Nestorius have any negative effect upon Our Lords primary command: That we should love one-another, as he loved/loves us?
This question of course side-steps the issue of friction caused by the resulting schism, which was more due to insult to the authority of Rome than to the heresy itself.

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, which is worse:
That someone has a perception of The Divinity, which is at varience with the ‘orthodox’, and is tolerated as ‘one who sees things differently’?
or:
That this person is cast out with his heresy, and makes a schism in The Church?
We are after all is said and done, only talking about perceptions. The reality is beyond description, and one perception may be more meaningful to one person than another is to another.
Surely, as long as the strange perception does not lead to substantive error, then it should be tolerated.
Is this not the essence of What Our Lord was saying?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Nestorius was teaching this against the wishes of the Church. HIs beliefs, whether they are venial or mortal can be debated, but his insistence on teaching these beliefs is what crossed the line. Period.

Hey, we seem to be getting far off subject here.
The core question here is:
Did either the error of Arius, or that of Nestorius have any negative effect upon Our Lords primary command: That we should love one-another, as he loved/loves us?
This question of course side-steps the issue of friction caused by the resulting schism, which was more due to insult to the authority of Rome than to the heresy itself.

I disagree. Paul was adamant that those who teach must teach according to the authority of the Church, or suffer damnation on their soul (a lot of paraphrasing, here).

You blame schisms on Rome’s arrogance (am I reading you right), but it takes two sides to make a schism. One side ignored the unity just as much as the other. The only problem is, only one side had authority. The other didn’t.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Nestorius was teaching this against the wishes of the Church. HIs beliefs, whether they are venial or mortal can be debated, but his insistence on teaching these beliefs is what crossed the line. Period.

I disagree. Paul was adamant that those who teach must teach according to the authority of the Church, or suffer damnation on their soul (a lot of paraphrasing, here).

You blame schisms on Rome’s arrogance (am I reading you right), but it takes two sides to make a schism. One side ignored the unity just as much as the other. The only problem is, only one side had authority. The other didn’t.

I agree, it takes two to tango.
The question remains: As this/these was/were only error(s) of perception, as the reality is beyond definition, was the fight worth the candle, or could a better solution, using a form of words, acceptable to both, have been more usefully found.
One that emphasised that this involved perception only, so long as that perception did not contravene the primary commandment.

 

[NotWorthy]

I agree, it takes two to tango.
The question remains: As this/these was/were only error(s) of perception, as the reality is beyond definition, was the fight worth the candle, or could a better solution, using a form of words, acceptable to both, have been more usefully found.

“Acceptable to Both”?!? Why does it have to be acceptable to both? This is called in today’s standards - ecumenism - (not by the original meaning). It has led to the watered down of numerous traditions, i.e contraception being sinful and whatnot. The only group that needs to find this acceptable is the group that is teaching.

One that emphasised that this involved perception only, so long as that perception did not contravene the primary commandment.

OK, according to Catholic Answers web-site, Nestorius had the following problem:

Nestorius rejected the traditional doctrine of the Incarnation by implicitly denying the hypostatic union of human and divine natures in the one divine person of Jesus. This denial was characterized notably by the rejection of the title “Theotokos” (“God bearer” or “Mother of God”) for the mother of Jesus. He claimed that Mary was the mother of Christ’s human nature but not the mother of God and concluded that only Jesus the man suffered and died on the cross.****

It seems that this is more than just a “swing too far in the other direction”.

 

[vocatio]

Okay, I do not profess to be a bible scholar. But I’ve followed this issue for about 30 years trying to figure out how did we really get the bible, which manuscripts are included, which if any were excluded and why. Who decides which are inspired and why. I could write a book of questions that haunted me for many years. So…let me try this with additional information that was either missed or not included in this thread.

Jerome was alone in his reasoning to exclude the deuterocanonical texts or aporcripha if you still insist on using that term. Both the Western Church and the Eastern Church recognize the canon of scripture that include the deuterocanonical books. It’s a fact.

The real question here is why? Why did Jerome believe they are should not be included? The Jews of the time had a canon of scripture that did not include the deaterocanonical books. So that should settle it RIght?..Wrong! What Jerome did not take into consideration and I believe wasn’t verified until much later…The Jewish canon during the time of Christ included the deuterocanonical books. Why? you may ask. There are references to these books in the New Testament…I’d had to look them up, but I’ve seen them and heard about them as close as yesterday directly from John Martignoni…visiting our Parish. This is not the first time I’ve heard or read this.

The story goes that when the Jewish temple was destroyed, the contol of the Jewish faith changed hands from the Pharasees to the Saducees… There’s a little rhime to remember this. The Saducees rejected the deuterocanonical books for whatever their reasons…one story told is that some only recognized the first 5 books of Moses or the Penteuch. …My spelling is horrible and I do need to look these up but my head is killing me…]

The Jews do not have authority over the Church. They do not have the Right to change the Canon for the Church. Jesus included them in the beginning as did the Apostles and early Christians/ early church fathers. Many people do not know the history about this…nor do they know about the history of the beginning of the reformation with Martin Luther. Martin Luther wanted to exclude the book of James because it quotes “faith without works is dead”. He also wanted to exclude the book of Revelations or Apocolypse one said because it was just to wierd for him. Martin Luther was a very scrupulous man and parinoid about salvation, so I’ve read and heard. He did not mean to nor did he originally want to be excommunicated or start a new church. He did not get all he wanted but he did get some of it. He even added the word “alone” after “faith” which is where we get the errant phrase “we are saved by faith alone”. That is not in the bible. This could easily be expanded into an indepth apologetical text that I just don’t have time for right now. However, relating it to my own story, I “rediscovered” the Catholic Church as the original Church. BUT, the Catholic Church was also in union with the Orthodox [catholic] Church. We need each other because it shows the truth about the early church as a whole. The Orthodox say that our Pope is the “first among equals” as stated by early church fathers. We beleive that too. Some may reject that now, but I don’t know that for sure.

Most of the modern errors are not really new. Even television evangelism concepts of prospering from beging true followers or tithers is an early church heresy…called Prosperity Theology as my priest recently quoted in a reply to my wife’s appeal to include CCD students with the Private Catholic School support. Many of the heresies today have really been around for quite some time but revisited over and over. One of the reasons the Church took such drastic measures in the history of the church was merely to protect the faith. Yes, they realized that they went overboard in some circumstances, but in essence, not really. Crusaids could be coorolated to the American invation and protection of medical students in Granada. They were trying to protect the Christians in Muslim tereitory. Perfect example…look at how there is a massive exodus of Christians from at least 2 countries in the middle east that I know about. It’s dangerous to be a Christian in Islamic controled territory. In fact it could very easily be lethal. That doesn’t mean “all” Muslims are evil hateful or whatever. But when a tyrant controls the people suffer.

Like I said I could elaborate, but I believe it would just expand into a hate war on CAF. Not my intension…just a tid bid of information. It’s on CAF, and many other resources online. This is not new stuff. But there is an Anti-Catholic movement out there that is very intense and Jack Chick tracts are still around and going strong. What an idiot.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

“Acceptable to Both”?!? Why does it have to be acceptable to both? This is called in today’s standards - ecumenism - (not by the original meaning). It has led to the watered down of numerous traditions, i.e contraception being sinful and whatnot. The only group that needs to find this acceptable is the group that is teaching.

I understand your point, but a wise teacher learns from his students.
I am not asking for core teaching to be ‘watered-down’
I did specify that only peripheral teachings should be open to various opinion.
There have been too many cases of so-called wise fathers arguing over how many angels can dance on the point of a needle.
These are futile arguments.
Likewise the actual realities of the incarnation are ineffable mysteries of the Divine.
Some of Nestorius’s arguments were well based upon sound logic, but sound logic, as we know it, is not guaranteed to be valid in the realm of the Divine.
For instance, G_d is immortal.
Thus G_d could not die upon the cross, or in any other circumstances.
Certainly G_d could share the experience of death with the human Jesus.
Perfectly good logic. Perfectly sound logic.
For Nestorius to be in error, the perfectly sound logic he used had to be invalid, that is, it was used outside of its domain.
It was though a perfectly good description of a valid perception.
As I said, perception and reality are not necessarily closely related.

OK, according to Catholic Answers web-site, Nestorius had the following problem:[sign]
Nestorius rejected the traditional doctrine of the Incarnation by implicitly denying the hypostatic union of human and divine natures in the one divine person of Jesus. This denial was characterized notably by the rejection of the title “Theotokos” (“God bearer” or “Mother of God”) for the mother of Jesus. He claimed that Mary was the mother of Christ’s human nature but not the mother of God and concluded that only Jesus the man suffered and died on the cross.[/sign]

It seems that this is more than just a “swing too far in the other direction”.
That which you quoted is, I accept the Church’s position on Her perception of the divinity of Christ.
It is though only a perception.
The reality is utterly ineffable.
It can be claimed that any perception which works is a valid perception.
Only a perception that does not work is invalid, and it does not work if it denies or devalues teachins which are central and vital.
Our Lord clearly states that argument about the nature of the Son of Man are of secondary importance.

 

[YADA]

Come to think of it… I draw great inspiration from Archbishop Fulton Sheen and he’s only on VHS!

I have his entire audio on a compact disc [MP3? - I can listen on my computer but not the car] received from CAF I think some 4 or 5 years ago…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

If anyone can provide some evidence that Dr. de Hamel is wrong and that Jerome, having been prevailed upon by Pope Damasus, translated and included the OT Deuteros in his Biblia Vulgata, I’d be very happy to see it.

I’ll even forward the information to Dr. de Hamel himself.

Foward a copy of Catholic bible of today is proof enough, that ST.Jerome at the outcome (finale) kept the Deuteros in his Biblia Vulgate. Whether documents may show St. Jerome questioned them, only proves he was very careful of what the Pope had instructed him to do. It doesnt prove St.Jerome kept them out, because we have always had them, and canonized by the Catholic Church. The proof is for Dr. de Hamel to prove otherwise, not state it is as a matter of fact that Jerome kept them out or the Catholic Church changed the bible.

 

[Harmony1988]

Jerome had his own opinions, he may have felt certain things he did were right, but these were put into question at several councils and ultimately decided upon by more (name removed by moderator)ut, information and more thought.

Pope Damasus and Siricus approved these, that power by the Holy Spirit working through the magesterium and ultimately promulgated by the authority of the Pope is a better case for ‘changing’ anything.

It was Luther who decided to contradict the Scriptures and use his largely limited views, beliefs and also being blinded by arrogance and rage at the Church to start the Western schism.