What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

[Rev Randy]

I wonder if I can buy a version like that.
Texas can be pretty hairy driving around, especially with all the gun toting redneck Baptists roaming around.




"LLOJ's modified Churchmobile fires Bible traks instead of shells"




.

Yes. Ya'll do have Hagee.

 

[Pteriax]

Your slippery slope fallacy does not wash here. As I am sure you know, but for some reason are not acknowledging, people can and do appeal to any number of canonical Scripture in the Protestant bible to promote "ungodly practices and doctrines."

So, once again, what is contained in the Apocrypha that made it such a bad idea?

That doesn't fly with me. Anyone can twist scripture to mean what they want it to mean. You do not have to twist the apocrypha to get these doctrines - they are there as plain as day (well, prayers for the dead are anyways - which supports purgatory like no other belief could).

 

[Pteriax]

It was already canon, before Trent. It is the Protestants somewhere down the line, who removed these books out of the Christian Bible. The Catholic Church (both east and west) established the canon, in the 5th and 6th centuries. The Orthodox added a few more, due to their usage in the liturgy, and the Protestants took away some out of ignorance.

Perhaps you need to do some study on this topic. The books that were rejected by the reformers, were/are Scripture and have been Scripture since the beginning of the Church, as we have evidence from the Fathers who quoted from these books as Scripture, as well as them being part of the established lists of canon in the 4th and 5th centuries.

You are right the Catholic Church identified them as Scripture, but you just got the timing wrong. It occurred more than 1000 years before you claim. Close but not quite accurate on your dating.

False. Go read Trent, learn about your own religion.

 

[brinny]

Ah yes, the ole term "quid pro quo" comes to mind......

Quid pro quo ("this for that" in Latin) means an exchange of goods or services, where one transfer is contingent upon the other.
English speakers often use the term to mean "a favour for a favour"; phrases with similar meaning include: "give and take", "tit for tat", and "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours."...........





.

 

[Tzaousios]

That doesn't fly with me. Anyone can twist scripture to mean what they want it to mean. You do not have to twist the apocrypha to get these doctrines - they are there as plain as day (well, prayers for the dead are anyways - which supports purgatory like no other belief could).

Even if one accepts your opinion here as correct concerning the book of Maccabees, what about all the other ones? It is a slippery slope to toss out all of the other ones just because you associate them as a collection with that nefarious book of Maccabees. What are in the other ones that made it a bad idea?

 

[Tzaousios]

False. Go read Trent, learn about your own religion.

False based upon what, Pteriax's personal fiat? I seem to recall you demanding sources from someone else not too far back.

 

[Albion]

False. Go read Trent, learn about your own religion.

Good answer. For us to correct all the errors in this thread would take some time and would be a waste of time in any case.

 

[Tzaousios]

Good answer. For us to correct all the errors in this thread would take some time and would be a waste of time in any case.

Trent addresses the matter of setting the canon. Erose mentioned the practice of Christians starting long before Trent. What do you have to say about that practice?

 

[Pteriax]

Even if one accepts your opinion here as correct concerning the book of Maccabees, what about all the other ones? It is a slippery slope to toss out all of the other ones just because you associate them as a collection with that nefarious book of Maccabees. What are in the other ones that made it a bad idea?

Here are 21 reasons (http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm):

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
   And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)​
8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
   Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.​
   Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.​
   Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.​
9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
    And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)​
    And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)​
    And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)​
11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
    "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)​
12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
    They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])​
14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
16. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) - "Read the divine Scriptures - namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
19. The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

Furthermore, the only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version. However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history, poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of this material in the Septuagint. The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon.
There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal.


See also The Apocrypha
And finally from one of the best sites, What About the Apocrypha?

 

[Erose]

False. Go read Trent, learn about your own religion.

Trent defined what already was against the attempt of the reformers to remove books from Scripture and closed the canon. So do a little research outside what you get in your Sunday school class. The Christian Bible has for at least 1600 years possessed these Sacred books. They were not added at Trent, but reaffirmed at Trent against those who wanted to remove them.

 

[Pteriax]

False based upon what, Pteriax's personal fiat? I seem to recall you demanding sources from someone else not too far back.

Trent is a source, and I would hope that Catholics would see it as legitimate.

 

[Rev Randy]

My shortlist were inventions. I'll deal with my own errors before deciding those of Rome. Now if it had asked for things I have issues with, my short list would be a bit longer.

 

[Pteriax]

Trent defined what already was against the attempt of the reformers to remove books from Scripture and closed the canon. So do a little research outside what you get in your Sunday school class. The Christian Bible has for at least 1600 years possessed these Sacred books. They were not added at Trent, but reaffirmed at Trent against those who wanted to remove them.

That is simply not true. Have you read the Trent documents, or just had them summarized for you? Maybe you are the one who needs to do research outside of Sunday school.

 

[Albion]

Here are 21 reasons (http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm):

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
   And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)​
8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
   Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.​
   Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.​
   Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.​
9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
    And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)​
    And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)​
    And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)​
11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
    "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)​
12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
    They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])​
14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
16. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) - "Read the divine Scriptures - namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
19. The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

Furthermore, the only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version. However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history, poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of this material in the Septuagint. The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon.
There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal.


See also The Apocrypha
And finally from one of the best sites, What About the Apocrypha?

But but...you mean to say that the Reformers didn't remove these uninspired books out of "ignorance?"

It's easy for the armchair theologians of today to make the snarky judgments they do, even though Calvin and Luther were the greatest Bible scholars of their time.

 

[Pteriax]

But but...you mean to say that the Reformers didn't remove these uninspired books out of "ignorance?"

That would be my basic point, yes.

 

[Rev Randy]

Trent is a source, and I would hope that Catholics would see it as legitimate.

I suspect Roman Catholics do. I suspect others do not see it as an eccumencial council.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here are 21 reasons

Furthermore, the only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version. However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history, poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of this material in the Septuagint. The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon.

There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal.

You and others may be interested in this thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7588850-9/
Allusions in Revelation from Old Testament

I find this person's view concerning the "allusions" found in the book of Revelation that are found in the Old Testament/Covenant rather fascinating.
Would anyone like to put down verses from Revelation and the verses from the OT/OC that are alluded to this? I think that would be fun. Thanks

THE SYMBOLISM IN BOOK OF REVELATION

One man studied and found 348 allusions (not illusions, Light) in Revelation from the Old Testament.
You see the similarity in wording and the context mirrored in Revelation and the particular Old Testament story, and immediately can recognize the reference source! That’s, IF you know the bible well enough to even notice that.

95 of the 348 plain references used in Revelation as taken from the Old Testament are repeated in Revelation.
That makes about 250 Old Testament passages are cited. How many chapters are in Revelation? 22. That makes about TEN OLD TESTAMENT REFERENCES FOR EVERY CHAPTER!

.

 

[Pteriax]

I suspect Roman Catholics do. I suspect others do not see it as an eccumencial council.

Ah, yes, true. I was speaking to a Roman though, but yes I know there are other Catholics as well that don't agree with Rome.

 

[Tzaousios]

Ah, yes, true. I was speaking to a Roman though, but yes I know there are other Catholics as well that don't agree with Rome.

Nevertheless, your opinion would be the same, would it not? The Apochrypha are "BAD," and there is not way around it.

 

[Pteriax]

Nevertheless, your opinion would be the same, would it not? The Apochrypha are "BAD," and there is not way around it.

Yep. I think they could be seen as purely historical, and just fine in that sense, but they do not belong on the same level as scripture.