Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

[submariner2]

Asked this question today to a fundamentalist up in the apologetics playground. He is trying to disprove a Catholic teaching by using the “neutral source” of the Bible.
I thought I would ask both Catholics and non-Catholics this simple quesion.
It begins with the premise of course that the Catholic Church put together the Bible we have.
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

just,

Of course it would not. But it is possible a church could change from the fundamentals over time and find itself out of touch. So your argument does not prove very much.

But I would argue that the bible was put together by the churches through informal consensus and not by any particular denominaion.

Rob

 

[Jim_Dandy]

It has been my experience that few Protestants know where we got the Bible, or the criteria used by the Church in discerning which writings she would accept into her New Testament canon. One was that the writing had to comport with her teachings. So the accusations that the Church’s teachings are “not biblical” are ludicrous. Protestants have (mis)interpretation problems.

I certainly didn’t know where we got the Bible during the years I was a Protestant (born and raised Southern Baptist), nor did it occur to me to ask. Would my teachers and pastor have known? And among the verses that were never the subject of a Sunday sermon was 1 Timothy 3:15 - the Church is “the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (RSV).

 

[Jim_Dandy]

just,

Of course it would not. But it is possible a church could change from the fundamentals over time and find itself out of touch. So your argument does not prove very much.

But I would argue that the bible was put together by the churches through informal consensus and not by any particular denominaion.

Rob

The Catholic Church is the nomination (named entity) from which the Protestant organizations (there is only one Church) de-nominated; i.e., broke away and gave themselves a different name. That scenario has been repeated thousands of times.

Do you not believe Jesus Christ when He promised to be with the Church ALWAYS (Mt 28:20)?. Do you not believe Him when He said He would send the Spirit to guide the Church into all truth ALWAYS (John 14:16-18, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-5)?. Do you not believe Jesus when He said the Church speaks for Him (Luke 10:16)? Do you believe that Jesus and the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church and allowed her to stop speaking for Him? When? What is your basis for believing this (if you do)?

Fact of history: The Catholic Church selected and canonized 27 of her own writings and named them the New Testament. At the same time, in the same Councils, she canonized 46 writings from the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia, the Books, in English – the Bible. She was about 364 years old at the time that this occurred at the end of the fourth century.

A little knowledge of history does a body a world of good.

Peace to you,

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[benjohnson]

Further, the Bible was compiled by the **undivided **Church. So, which part of the now divided Church has the right interpreation?

Jon

We also have conundrum on how to view the additional books in the various Orthodox bibles, and oddities like the Third Epistle to the Corinthians that at one point were included in their cannon.

 

[Cavaradossi]

We also have conundrum on how to view the additional books in the various Orthodox bibles, and oddities like the Third Epistle to the Corinthians that at one point were included in their cannon.

Historically, there never even was a closed canon. There was a gradual process of accretion that happened over several centuries, which is why we see quite a few fourth century figures like Ephraim the Syrian, Basil of Caesaria, Athanasius the Great, who each had slightly differing canons of scripture. Even with these disagreements, there seemed not to be any problems, because those books which were traditionally read liturgically but were of questionable authorship (most especially the so-called deuterocanonical books from the Septuagint) were considered to be ‘worthy of being read’, regardless of their authenticity.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Historically, there never even was a closed canon. There was a gradual process of accretion that happened over several centuries, which is why we see quite a few fourth century figures like Ephraim the Syrian, Basil of Caesaria, Athanasius the Great, who each had slightly differing canons of scripture. Even with these disagreements, there seemed not to be any problems, because those books which were traditionally read liturgically but were of questionable authorship (most especially the so-called deuterocanonical books from the Septuagint) were considered to be ‘worthy of being read’, regardless of their authenticity.

I thought for a while that a conundrum was a contraceptive device.

 

[Hokomai]

I thought for a while that a conundrum was a contraceptive device.

I think it is used with your fallacy.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I think it is used with your fallacy.

A conundrum could also be a kind of apartment-style home that you own rather than rent! Or it could be a condominium:shrug:

 

[Hokomai]

A conundrum could also be a kind of apartment-style home that you own rather than rent! Or it could be a condominium:shrug:

Are they made from tin foil?

 

[ChrissyB364]

Spiritual immaturity or spiritual pride?

Those words make so much sense! I was just talking to my husband the other night about the differences between Catholicism and many Protestant denominations and completely offended him when I said that to me it all boiled down to ignorance or arrogance. These words describe it so much better, and are a far sight friendlier. Stealing this little gem!

 

[JustaServant]

Just a thought, here. Just because Justice Ginsberg is an American, and a Supreme Court justice at that, doesn’t mean she has the correct interpretation of the Constitution.

Further, the Bible was compiled by the **undivided **Church. So, which part of the now divided Church has the right interpreation?

Jon

I’ve often thought there is a paralel between how the Bible is interpreted and how our Constitution is interpreted. It speaks more to human nature than the documents themselves. We have clergy in the Catholic Church who do not stay within Catholic teaching and tradition. Just as liberal Justices of the Supreme Court do not stay within the boundries of the Constitution. Human nature does not want to be limited by authority, it wants to be its own authority (“ye shall be as God” Gen.3). Ginsberg would do well to stay wtihin the bounds of the Constitution, and within what has been historically been decided. But that would interfere with her progressive ideas…

One of the things God had to show me, and one of the reasons I reverted, was to get my eyes off of the earthly Church, and focus on the Church of All Ages. The Catholic Church put together the Bible as we know it (the undivided Church as you call it, a good term BTW). Why would they (the Church of All Ages) include books that contridict the teaching?
The answer is of course, they didn’t. Those books that did contridict, or teach heretical/Gnostic philosophies were not included in the Canon.
Why do fundamentalists rely on the Bible thier enemies put together? Why would the CC be so stupid as to randomly choose books that contridicted what they teach?

 

[JustaServant]

just,

Of course it would not. But it is possible a church could change from the fundamentals over time and find itself out of touch. So your argument does not prove very much.

But I would argue that the bible was put together by the churches through informal consensus and not by any particular denominaion.

Rob

Jim Dandy answered your question, to which I will only add:
History is not in the realm of ‘what ifs’ and ‘is it possibles’, its the realm of cold facts.
The only alternative is to create your own history. Then you’ll be in good company on the cable channels in between thier documentaries on Bigfoot and UFOs.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Jim Dandy answered your question, to which I will only add:
History is not in the realm of ‘what ifs’ and ‘is it possibles’, its the realm of cold facts.
The only alternative is to create your own history. Then you’ll be in good company on the cable channels in between thier documentaries on Bigfoot and UFOs.

It is possible that condominiums are made of tin-foil. There was a folk song in the 1960s called “Little Boxes” made of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same!

 

[ignatius777]

Asked this question today to a fundamentalist up in the apologetics playground. He is trying to disprove a Catholic teaching by using the “neutral source” of the Bible.
I thought I would ask both Catholics and non-Catholics this simple quesion.
It begins with the premise of course that the Catholic Church put together the Bible we have.
Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

I think its quite a valid question. Protestants claim the bible disproves Catholicism but it the church put the bible together why would they include books that contradict their own teachings. This is not a case of spiritual immaturity its a case of spiritual ignorance. Most folks who leave the church for protestism do so as a reuslt of not knowing their faith but know just as little about what they convert to and just repeat from rote memorization what they are told to say

 

[exnihilo]

Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?

First I’d like to say this is a fair and excellent question. And this is one of those questions I’ve realized points out a disturbing truth; The questions posed by atheists or non-believers are often the same posed by Christians of different churches. This is one of those questions. Often times those who deny the Christian faith will tell Christians that their own Bible contradicts itself. This assumes the men who declared Holy Scripture were too stupid to realize the books they proclaimed as sacred were different. This assumes they just haphazardly put together a group of books. This assumes the men who compiled it did not understand the books were telling the same truth in different ways. This assumes that every statement, sentence, paragraph or any division of words is intended to fully convey all possible information. This assumes the non-believer has a right to declare what is the meaning of another man’s holy books. I find this to be a very bad argument.

To answer your question we can invent all sorts of theories as to why this would be. But I believe the most plausible history is that they did not put together a book that disproved their doctrine. I would note that this does not require that the Catholic church’s doctrine is right. Having a book that does not disprove a doctrine is not the same as the book proving it. Of course I’m certainly even now convinced that Catholic doctrine is a lot closer to the truth than the vast majority of Christian denominations.

 

[mark_a]

Spiritual immaturity or spiritual pride?

The immaturity of spiritual pride.

 

[submariner2]

Fact of history: The Catholic Church selected and canonized 27 of her own writings and named them the New Testament. At the same time, in the same Councils, she canonized 46 writings from the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia, the Books, in English – the Bible. She was about 364 years old at the time that this occurred at the end of the fourth century.

Jim,

They were canonized at Trent but previous to that the churches accepted the 27 generally by consensus without any church-wide council or direction from any central authority.

Their were no church wide councils in 364. The one you are referring to was a local council and the Roman church was not even consulted.

Previous to Trent there were many who accepted Jeromes judgement written in the Latin Vulgate that the Deuterocanicals were “apochrypha” and not suitable for doctrine.

Many history books testify to this history of our bible.

Rob

 

[submariner2]

Jim Dandy answered your question, to which I will only add:
History is not in the realm of ‘what ifs’ and ‘is it possibles’, its the realm of cold facts.
The only alternative is to create your own history. Then you’ll be in good company on the cable channels in between thier documentaries on Bigfoot and UFOs.

Justa,

I entirely agree. Here is the true history from a Catholic produced book on the bible produced for Catholics.

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

“At the time of the Reformation, the canon of the Bible, Old and New
Testaments, was called into question. Generally, the Protestants
disputed the Catholic claim to interpret scripture, either by Papal
decree or by the action of church councils.No one had defined the
limits of the Bible until the (Catholic) Council of Trent, 1546
From this time, the Roman Catholic Church declared that the Old
and New Testaments, plus the deuterocanoncial books that were
called Apocrypha by the Protestants, were scripture.”

p59
“For the first fifteen hundred years of christianity, no christian
church put forth a difinintive list of Bible books. Most christians
had followed St. Augustine and included the “Apocrapha” in the canon,
but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders.”

“He (Jerome) writes,‘This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted introduction
to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that
what is not found in our list must be placed among the Apochryphal writings’. He then
exludes Wisdom. Sarach, Judith, Tobit, the Shepherd and 1&2 Maccabees. He does not mention
Baruch.”

p3

“Not all the books in the Apochypha are in the Catholic canon.”

Harpers Bible Dictionary
Jerome and the Vulgate
Page37
“He (Jerome) treated the apochraphal works as edifying but not to be used for the
purpose of establishing doctrine.”

There are good history books on this subject easy to obtain used and cheap on amazon.com. As you can see this history deviates from the opinions of Jim Dandy.
I have heard his opinions asserted before and I wonder where they come from?

I am sure we can all agree on the facts of history if we can get our history sources to talk to each other. I have found that the experts are in general agreement on all the aspects of history whether Catholic or protestant.

Rob

 

[JustaServant]

There are good history books on this subject easy to obtain used and cheap on amazon.com. As you can see this history deviates from the opinions of Jim Dandy.
I have heard his opinions asserted before and I wonder where they come from?

I am sure we can all agree on the facts of history if we can get our history sources to talk to each other. I have found that the experts are in general agreement on all the aspects of history whether Catholic or protestant.

Rob

Okay, but we’re not talking about when. That’s another thread. We’re talking about why. Why would the Catholic Church put together a Book that disproves thier own doctrine?
BTW. I like your username. As a kid I always thought Submariner was way cooler than Aquaman.

 

[Nicea325]

Last I checked, trying determine what sins others are committing in their hearts (like pride), or trying to find mitigating factors for their behavior (like ignorance) was an act of judgment, since these things cannot be observed.

I stand corrected my Orthodox brother!