[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Vat.II changed nothing while changing everything. (yes a bit hyperbolic) and that is not a sarcastic statement.[/quote]
Actually, after reading Vatican II documents and understanding the Magisterium’s role in understanding the council (because of its language) the council didn’t do much (laxity in obligatory stuff like meatless Fridays and Mass in the sacred language happened, but were still highly encouraged). What did happen was the wave of modernism that hit the Church a few decades before, finally slipped through with the “[fake] spirit of Vatican II.” It is the Rule for Radicals coming to blossom.
The council itself is not heretical, although those groups are usually heretical or at least schismatic. But, yes there were abuses post VII, but VII itself did not allow those abuses. The fact that there were also abuses before (that is why we created the Office of Inquisition after all) seems to allude some of these schismatic groups.[/quote]Fair enough for now Chris. This is a plausible exposition of the situation which does account for all the confusion and not being specifically equipped to offer anything better at this time as well you having a good track record of accuracy with respect to what your church at least says, I accept the overall content of this post.
It almost physically hurts me that we don’t live near each other. There’s another gigantic discussion I can’t possibly get to in here too. =[
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Vat.II changed nothing while changing everything. (yes a bit hyperbolic) and that is not a sarcastic statement.[/quote]
Actually, after reading Vatican II documents and understanding the Magisterium’s role in understanding the council (because of its language) the council didn’t do much (laxity in obligatory stuff like meatless Fridays and Mass in the sacred language happened, but were still highly encouraged). What did happen was the wave of modernism that hit the Church a few decades before, finally slipped through with the “[fake] spirit of Vatican II.” It is the Rule for Radicals coming to blossom.
The council itself is not heretical, although those groups are usually heretical or at least schismatic. But, yes there were abuses post VII, but VII itself did not allow those abuses. The fact that there were also abuses before (that is why we created the Office of Inquisition after all) seems to allude some of these schismatic groups.[/quote]
There was nothing the least bit heretical about Vatican 2, in spirit or in practice. It was merely to adjust the course to be more in line with scripture and to lessen inclinations and weightiness toward rituals and laws.
Some people like the old traditions, the latin masses and stuff and there is nothing wrong with that. But the re-adjustment toward the Eucharist and scripture was actually needed. Minutia like ritual and indulgences, for instance, was confused with the core of the faith.
Vatican 2 was badly needed and did a fine job of focusing more on Christ and less on human ways. If it seems like it made faith ‘easier’ well so be it. Difficult teachings and practices does not a good Christian make.
Like the Puritans in early America who pretty much outlawed enjoyment itself as sinful, whose way was very strict and hard, were an abomination to the Lord in practice.
Jesus said “My yoke is easy and my burden light”, who are humans to add to it?
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Jesus said “My yoke is easy and my burden light”, who are humans to add to it?[/quote]This is so tragically laughable coming from a Catholic that it defies words.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Jesus said “My yoke is easy and my burden light”, who are humans to add to it?[/quote]This is so tragically laughable coming from a Catholic that it defies words.
[/quote]
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
I often find that I seek an answer or confirmation and it comes to me. I know that I have beliefs in religion and the teachings, but the prectice is unbearable. I picked up a copy of Tolstoys Confessions and Other Religious Writings, which I stumbled upon at the book store, and found that he had the very same argument with himself that I had and am having with myself. He has very sound reasoning in my assesment, and I am curious if any of you might acknowlede there might be something to what he is saying in the above section. I also think he makes the strongest rational argument against Athism I have ever read, if for no other reason I think this makes this book worth reading. [/quote]
It’s an argument against Atheism as long as someone doesn’t point out that his first argument is circular (the first and third parts of his premise).
The most reasonable arguments for G-d’s existence I have found are these:
The Universe began to exist.
The Universe is fine tuned.
Objective morality.
Personal Experiences.
Jesus of Nazareth (historical claims).[/quote]
Wow this is old, but would you mind explaining the last 2 Chris?
[quote]BlakeAJackson wrote:
I often find that I seek an answer or confirmation and it comes to me. I know that I have beliefs in religion and the teachings, but the prectice is unbearable. I picked up a copy of Tolstoys Confessions and Other Religious Writings, which I stumbled upon at the book store, and found that he had the very same argument with himself that I had and am having with myself. He has very sound reasoning in my assesment, and I am curious if any of you might acknowlede there might be something to what he is saying in the above section. I also think he makes the strongest rational argument against Athism I have ever read, if for no other reason I think this makes this book worth reading. [/quote]
It’s an argument against Atheism as long as someone doesn’t point out that his first argument is circular (the first and third parts of his premise).
The most reasonable arguments for G-d’s existence I have found are these:
The Universe began to exist.
The Universe is fine tuned.
Objective morality.
Personal Experiences.
Jesus of Nazareth (historical claims).[/quote]
Wow this is old, but would you mind explaining the last 2 Chris?[/quote]
Well knowing that BC is a fan of WLC like I am, those are the list of arguments that WLC usually presents in debates or lectures or emphasis on one of them more specifically on the list or not.
This is a primer, there is much more stuff on properly basic belief and the historicity of the resurrection on that channel when you have time. I have to go back to studying but if you want to talk to me PM me.
opps that talk didn’t talk about knowing God in a properly basic way
another vid from a great channel as well.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Say, whatever happened to brother Chris?
Did he get raptured or something?[/quote]He’s busy. VERY busy. He couldn’t have gotten raptured because I’m still here =] Besides. God hasn’t answered my ongoing prayer for your salvation yet so I’m willing to tarry a bit longer. I won’t forget about ya Eph.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Thanks T, was wondering what happened to him.[/quote]No trouble. He drops me a line here and there as do I him. There is a great gulf fixed between us at the moment, but I love the guy. I really do.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
And, not just in any other case. In all cases. If Jesus Christ, our King of kings, has to answer by what authority he speaks…Canon of Scripture has to answer by what authority is it reliable. I mean really what is the bulwark and pillar of truth, after all?[/quote]
Okay first for this one.
Jesus Christ derives His authority from the Father. He said as much Himself. He even stated “I and my Father are one”. Actually, I could just stop there.[/quote]
This is fine (I read the rest), the Father gave authority to Son. The Son was able to do this because he fulfilled prophesy by the Jewish Prophets.
First, I’d like to ask you where you received this way as to know which books belong in the Canon of scripture and why do you believe it is authoritative?
Further, though I may be wrong, looking at this method practically. I come up with a list of books much higher than 73 books that is in the Canon. I would have to add Martin Luther King, Jr’s letters and a speech or two (which has credence since there has been a few protestant denominations that appealed to add MLK’s stuff to the Canon), even though I don’t much care for the man. I would have to add The Didache, I would have to add the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Catechism of St. Thomas Aquinas, Intro to the Devout Life, The Way by Fr. Escrivas, Summa Theologica, Contra Gentile: I-IV, I’d have to add Council documents, encyclicals by Bishops, Constitutions of the Catholic Church, Dogmas, messages from the Apparitions of the Saints and Mary. Basically the top three shelves of my library.
Of course not, that is why he gave us the Divine Revelation to the saints once and for all.
I don’t suppose so, but has he made it easy enough that any individuals can yield a solid answer?
[quote]
You certainly could pick up an apocryphal book and read it. I read some of them many years ago.[/quote]
Yes, I especially like the apocrypha book about Mary’s parents consecrating her a virgin as a child, Jesus as a little child in his day to day life. Most interesting. But, this doesn’t answer my question, what authority do we look at to know which books are inspired? Ourselves?
Where do I look to know where it was rejected? And, how do I know which Canon to use? Luther’s? Reformed-Protestant? Catholic? Do I go to the early Christians with all their differing lists of books? Who is the authority that says this is the Canon?
[quote]
In any case, the books of the Protestant canon are not rejected by Catholics. For sure it’s a good start. Read them for awhile, before you do the above.
I think I’ve covered as much as I should in one post. Feel free to follow with more questions/comments.[/quote]
But, what about the Deuterocanonical books in the old testament that protestants reject? They seem pretty legit to me.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
First, I’d like to ask you where you received this way as to know which books belong in the Canon of scripture and why do you believe it is authoritative?[/quote]
As I said, I took my lead from how I had just explained how Christ showed his authority. If you mean what book I studied, I couldn’t even tell you, this is just stuff I’ve studied over the years, maybe it’s entirely mine, but I doubt it. Sounds like it came out of a basic theology book to me. The idea to take this approach as a framework for evaluating scripture I think is probably my own. I thing the 2 questions are linked, especially since Jesus Christ is called “the Word”.
However, I didn’t mean to make it our first criteria for deciding the canon, but rather to just give another angle on it.
If you are asking how they decided what books to choose and what to reject, there is probably a fair amount on the topic of the biblical canon on the net. Otherwise you’d have to get a book or 2 on the subject. But as a wrote briefly to Sloth on the Eli thread- “You will find that these councils are acknowledging those books that had already obtained prominence in usage.”
Here is a good basic article, although for some reason there are no paragraphs in it:
http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/f3/arm297.shtml Here is a sentence from the article that summarizes the process- “The specific criteria that was used in determining the exact collection of the New Testament included the issues of apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity, inspiration, and church usage to decide canonical status.” I would consider apostolic authority of primary importance. This one requirement removes all the books you list I’m afraid.
Here is a more thorough treatment of the subject:
Why not the Deuterocanonical books? Of course because the are not the Hebrew bible. Everything written before Christ was in the care of the scribes, and their bible was fixed by that time.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Where do I look to know where it was rejected? And, how do I know which Canon to use?
Who is the authority that says this is the Canon?
I don’t suppose so, but has he made it easy enough that any individuals can yield a solid answer?
[/quote]
I feel your frustration. It is just as Solomon said: “of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” (Ecc 12:12 KJV) Don’t let the possibilities drown you. Use your mind to the best of your ability, but look to God in prayer, and ask him to speak to your soul. Your Creator, who sent his own Son to die for your sins, will not lead you astray. You must believe that God has overseen the canonization process, and He will help you find your way.
I think I would be remiss in not also reminding you to steer clear of those other books that are put forth by institutions with horrendous records of wide scale wickedness- The dark ages, burning bibles and people, the Ustachi in the last century, pedophilia in this century.
I’m sure you have seen this verse:
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Mat 7:20 KJV)
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I think I would be remiss in not also reminding you to steer clear of those other books that are put forth by institutions with horrendous records of wide scale wickedness- The dark ages, burning bibles and people, the Ustachi in the last century, pedophilia in this century.
I’m sure you have seen this verse:
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Mat 7:20 KJV)
[/quote]
“The specific criteria that was used in determining the exact collection of the New Testament included the issues of apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity, inspiration, and church usage to decide canonical status.”
I’m willing to answer your questions here, but first tell me if you follow the clarification I gave you on the Eli thread.
And also, one post for one sentence is a little wasteful of page space in my opinion. [/quote]
I have no questions. You accept the books of the bible based on tradition. [/quote]
Rather, the bible sets tradition for me.
Collecting the letters of the apostles, and calling it the bible, is in clear obedience to 2Thes2:15, which we have already discussed. You want to say that this process is, in itself, also a tradition. And if I allow for it, I must allow for all manner of tradition, whether they agree with the apostles writings or not. That is, kosher dietary laws, the need for a “holy” drainage system for the vessels used in the Mass, all the genuflecting, rules like the laity may eat the body of Christ, but only the priest is worthy to drink the blood of Christ, and on and on and on. These are therefore on par with the “tradition” of recognizing the apostolic writings as Scripture. Is that what your saying?
Edit: And it also mentions oral traditions
15Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours
