What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

[Rev Randy]

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.

May I ask how you determine what's in and what's out?

 

[Albion]

May I ask how you determine what's in and what's out?

That was addressed in post 54, I believe.

 

[Rev Randy]

That was addressed in post 54, I believe.

Thanks. So it's because he sees them as Roman.

 

[Pteriax]

May I ask how you determine what's in and what's out?

That was addressed in post 54, I believe.

Yep.

Thanks. So it's because he sees them as Roman.

Nope.

 

[tz620q]

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.

From The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture

"Third Council of Carthage (held in A.D. 397, the list was later ratified in A.D. 415).

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (Samuel 1 & 2 and Kings 1 & 2), two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus), the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah), two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept."

The Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I started the process of determining the Canon of Scripture. Councils in Hippo and Carthage were convened to promulgate an authoritative list.

I don't like defending cut and paste apologetics in a single megalithic post. Noone reads such long sections of quote and commentary, so if you want we can go through the other 20 points in turn.

 

[Pteriax]

[/list]
From The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture

"Third Council of Carthage (held in A.D. 397, the list was later ratified in A.D. 415).

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (Samuel 1 & 2 and Kings 1 & 2), two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus), the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah), two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept."

The Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I started the process of determining the Canon of Scripture. Councils in Hippo and Carthage were convened to promulgate an authoritative list.

I don't like defending cut and paste apologetics in a single megalithic post. Noone reads such long sections of quote and commentary, so if you want we can go through the other 20 points in turn.

Are you saying Trent is wrong?

 

[Rev Randy]

Yep.



Nope.

I thought that was point #1.

 

[tz620q]

Are you saying Trent is wrong?

How so? Here is the start of the Wiki article on the Canon of Trent Canon of Trent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"... the phrase Canon of Trent usually refers to the list of biblical books that were from then on to be considered canonical. This was a decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session, of 4 April 1546, which passed by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain).[1] With its decision, the Council of Trent confirmed the identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[2] and that had existed in the earliest canonical lists from the synods of Carthage and Rome in the fourth century. The list confirmed that the deuterocanonical books were on a par with the other books of the canon (while Luther placed these books in the Apocrypha of his canon) and ended debate on the Antilegomena and coordinated church tradition with the Scriptures as a rule of faith. It also affirmed Jerome's Latin translation, the Vulgate, to be authoritative for the text of Scripture, contrary to Protestant views that the Greek and Hebrew texts were more authoritative"

 

[Rev Randy]

Are you saying Trent is wrong?

About what? On some points I'd say yes on others, no.

 

[Pteriax]

How so? Here is the start of the Wiki article on the Canon of Trent Canon of Trent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"... the phrase Canon of Trent usually refers to the list of biblical books that were from then on to be considered canonical. This was a decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session, of 4 April 1546, which passed by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain).[1] With its decision, the Council of Trent confirmed the identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[2] and that had existed in the earliest canonical lists from the synods of Carthage and Rome in the fourth century. The list confirmed that the deuterocanonical books were on a par with the other books of the canon (while Luther placed these books in the Apocrypha of his canon) and ended debate on the Antilegomena and coordinated church tradition with the Scriptures as a rule of faith. It also affirmed Jerome's Latin translation, the Vulgate, to be authoritative for the text of Scripture, contrary to Protestant views that the Greek and Hebrew texts were more authoritative"

Wikipedia is not a source I will recognize as legitimate for various reasons. Next.

About what? On some points I'd say yes on others, no.

Well, I obviously have a lot of problems with Trent, but the person I was addressing that to, who is RC, has posted something contrary to what Trent says.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Did I say I was Catholic? Catholicism didn't 'birth' protestantism. Protestantism came from Catholicism, in the same way that all other heresies came from Catholicism via changing of the faith.

My apologies for misidentifying you. It would help if you used a faith icon.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This isn't true. We do have a debate sub-board, it is called General Theology, as at least half of these threads have something to do with Catholicism.

I noticed that too. It seems we exterminated the SDA's from GT. It is getting fairly boring here without them.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

that's so odd too . the non-denom statement of faith re-directs sabbath discussion to General Theology . so they're probably in the SDA forum .

 

[bbbbbbb]

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"




.

I love it! Especially the onion dome on the steeple. Thanks!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by tz620q

How so? Here is the start of the Wiki article on the Canon of Trent
"... the phrase Canon of Trent usually refers to the list of biblical books that were from then on to be considered canonical.
This was a decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session, of 4 April 1546, which passed by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain).[1] With its decision, the Council of Trent confirmed the identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[2] and that had existed in the earliest canonical lists from the synods of Carthage and Rome in the fourth century.
​

I never really studied on that and tried to find a thread on CF about that subject. I did find this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t6926358/
GT Response: Council of Trent, Canon 9, and Scripture
This is a thread that was started in General Theology regarding the apparent Scriptural conflict between Canon 9 of the Council of Trent and the biblical record. For they that know, could you please post your understanding of the Catholic position on Canon 9 of Trent. Here is the link to the GT thread.

http://christianforums.com/t6917340-...scripture.html

I would like to get a good, concise, well rounded Catholic position on the topic, then I will post a link to this thread in the GT thread as the Catholic response to the issue.

Originally Posted by ScottBot
My Catholic brothers and sisters.

I have been posting at CF for nearly 3 years now. Them that know me can attest that I have been an ardent defender of our Catholic doctrines since the day I set foot here. I also know that I am not the only one who burdens day in and day out to ensure that Catholicism if fairly represented in the den of torment and vice called General Theology (and many of the Theology subforums). Those of you that also know, I was a Supermoderator of the Theology Team for the better part of last year.

It has been my growing position that our efforts in the great Catholic v Protestant War of 2008 are pointless. No quarter is given, and none are taken. I have to applaud much of my Catholic bretheren (to remain nameless, you know who you are), as we have done, on the whole, an admirable job of representing our faith fairly from authentic Catholic sources to show what our faith is about, only to be met with the constant anti-Catholic droning from about a dozen or so very impolite and inarticulate posters. Here is what I propose.

Don't post in any of the Theology threads. None. GT, Mariology, CHurch History, nothing. Let them continue on their rant. It will save you a mountain of aggrevation and our efforts change nothing there anyway. Let them continue on. What we could do is monitor those threads, and when a particular issue is raised that concerns you, start a corresponding thread here with a link to the GT thread. We can then have our very well informed apologists explain the Catholic theological perspective, and post responses from the Catechism, Scripture, Church Fathers, etc...
Then when we have a good handle on the topic, someone here could make a brief post in the corresponding GT thread with a link to the OBOB discussion. COngregational forum rules forbid debate, so we won't have to worry about one of them coming in here and accusing us of being tools of the anti-Christ, etc...

It is going to become my personal policy, and I hope that many of you who have been getting your senses beat up at GT will join me.

Pax Christi

Scott

 

[Creech]

The idea that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible has always seemed rather silly to me. Especially since they have often contradicted themselves.

 

[Second Phoenix]

The idea that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible has always seemed rather silly to me. Especially since they have often contradicted themselves.

Infallible on issues of faith and morals, not on who makes the best burger.

In what ways do you believe Catholics have contradicted themselves?

 

[Creech]

Infallible on issues of faith and morals, not on who makes the best burger.

In what ways do you believe Catholics have contradicted themselves?

The Roman Catholic Church went from teaching that there is no salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church to teaching that it is possible for even non-Christians to be saved.

 

[Albion]

Infallible on issues of faith and morals, not on who makes the best burger.

As though 'who makes the best burger' has ever been the source of a major dispute within the church. I'm quite sure we aren't sticking our necks out to conclude that THEOLOGICAL issues was what was meant.

 

[Erose]

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

You know what they say about fastballs down the middle of the plate.

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.

1. The Catholic Church closed and dogmatized the existing Canon at Trent, but the canon as we have it was made "official" in the 5th century as the synod of Rome by Pope Damascus in 382ad, reaffirmed at the synod of Hippo soon after and then at the council of Carthage in 397.
   
   Another question would be if Rome waited until Trent to make the contested books canon, then why at the council of Florence, did they require the Coptic Christians that returned to full communion with Rome to accept the Catholic canon hum? That is over a century before Trent.
   
   Council of Florence 1431-1445 A.D. <17ecum11.htm>
   
   Or what about Pope Innocent list from 405ad
   
   Letter of Innocent I on the Canon of Scripture
   
   I can keep going on here. The point is that you have to understand what happens when the Church 'defines' something. It isn't that they are establishing something new, but rather reaffirming and eliminating all debate about that doctrine. The reformers were questioning the existing canon, so Trent define what the canon has always been, to eliminate all debate about what the canon is.
   
   

   [*]Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

   Found out from the Dead Sea Scrolls that this isn't true as all of the contested books are found in Hebrew or Aramaic.
   
   

   [*]Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

   Give me the verses in the other books were the author claims that they are profess that they are writing a Sacred book. For this argument to work, all of the 66 books that you accept must have that feature. I'll wait for those passages.
   
   

   [*]These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

   Jewish Church? Are you talking about the Ebionites or are you talking about the Jews?
   
   If the Ebionites, well we really have very little info on the Christian sect, and what they accepted as canon, I do not believe is part of that info.
   
   If the Jews themselves, there is no evidence that they closed there canon earlier than the Christian Church, and as a Christian, I would think that the post Christ Rabbis would have very little authority.
   
   

   [*]They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

   There is no evidence for this claim. None. In fact there is ample evidence that the Church Fathers viewed these writings as Scripture, because they quoted from these writings as such.
   
   

   [*]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.

   1st and foremost you should understand that 1st and 2nd Maccabees covers about the same timeframe. They are not sequential as lets say 1st and 2nd Kings, but rather their relationship is similar to how the books of Kings and Chronicles are related. 2nd there were more than one Antiochus talked about in those two books.
   
   Bible Encyclopedia: Antiochus
   
   

   [*]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)​

   You know what is interesting? The Jews have a very ancient tradition dating back before Christ. They actually pray for the dead. Did you know that? They call it Kaddish.
   
   
   
   

   [*]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.​

   
   Lets look at the rest of that passage:
   
   25:16 The fear of God is the beginning of his love: and the beginning of faith is to be fast joined unto it.
   25:17 The sadness of the heart is every plague: and the wickedness of a woman is all evil.
   25:18 And a man will choose any plague, but the plague of the heart:
   25:19 And any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman:
   25:20 And any affliction, but the affliction from them that hate him:
   25:21 And any revenge, but the revenge of enemies.
   25:22 There is no head worse than the head of a serpent:
   25:23 And there is no anger above the anger of a woman. It will be more agreeable to abide with a lion and a dragon, than to dwell with a wicked woman.
   25:24 The wickedness of a woman changeth her face: and she darkeneth her countenance as a bear: and sheweth it like sackcloth. In the midst of her neighbours,
   25:25 Her husband groaned, and hearing he sighed a little.
   25:26 All malice is short to the malice of a woman, let the lot of sinners fall upon her.
   
   I think any man who has experienced the wrath of a scorned woman would agree with the author. So where in the rest of the Bible does this contradict?
   
   

   [*]It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

   Post some examples.
   
   

   [*]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)​

   I thought you didn't believe in 1st Mac. Not only that were does it say that one must be a prophet to be used by God to write Scripture?
   
   

   [*]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)​

   So Josephus is a figure of authority? Tell me why he has such a high level of esteem? He is a Jew who rejected Christ is he not?
   

   [*]The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

   So the Manual of Discipline bears authority on Christians?
   
   

   [*]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])​

   No such thing as this council of Jamnia. It never existed. Current views is that the Jews closed there canon somewhere between the 4th and 6th centuries.
   
   

   [*]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.

   A couple of things here: the Muratorian Canon refers only to the New Testament canon, not the old. It does speak of the Book of Wisdom, but as an accepted book.
   
   Melito's canon is the shorter one that was originally accepted in Alexandria patriarchate and it was composed of 22 books. It should be pointed out that this canon is even shorter than the Protestant canon, as it doesn't refer to Esther.
   
   In Origens canon he also refers to the 22 books, but includes Esther and the Epistle of Jeremiah.
   
   You see up until the 4th or 5th century the Alexandrian Patriarchate used the 22 book OT. There is no evidence that this was a church wide practice.
   
   

   [*]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.

   Jerome was heavily influenced by his Jewish friends who taught him Hebrew and Aramaic, and helped him find Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts to translate into Latin. The point needs to be made here is that Jerome was not even a bishop, he was priest, who was given the responsibility to fix the Latin Bible, by Pope Damasus. He got much grief from his contemporaries, concerning his opinions and later denied them as his opinions.
   
   CHURCH FATHERS: Apology Against Rufinus, Book II (Jerome)
   
   

   [*]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.

   No the terms these two terms were coined by a Jewish convert, Sixtus of Siena, to differentiate the contested books in his debates with Jews.
   
   
   
   

   [*]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.

   Only the 1st sentence of this is true. The synod of Carthage did not mention Jerome's translation, and Jerome's Vulgate did include all books.
   
   

   [*]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)

   Already dealt with this.
   
   

   [*]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

   Not true.
   
   

   [*]Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)

   Don't see it. He uses the same list as Origen, which includes the epistle of Jeremiah.
   
   To be continued...