bonesmccoy said:
The position of the church is that sacred Tradition is just as important as sacred Scripture. For the early Church, there wasn't any such thing as canon, and Christians had many disagreements about which documents were part of the faith they'd been given by the Apostles, and which ones weren't.
So it's not about doubting the Bible, but accepting that we have what we have because of the actions of the Catholic Church.
I don't accept that. The Catholic church appointed itself as the provider of it because they were appointed as the official church. That does not mean that they were directly involved with the creation of it although they can be credited with it's wider distribution.
The church didn't arrive at the Scripture, the Scriptures arrived at the church. It didn't take a lot of effort since over a few hundred years, the letter were read and re-read. How that came to be has more to do with how inspired you think the Bible is. In any event, the canon was assemble by mid 2nd century worst case scenario and generally accepted as Doctrine at the time of writing- disputes notwithstanding.
When it comes to the use of images - and rosaries, and crosses, and the Mystical Body of the Church - I trust the Church's authority - the same authority you trust when you read the Bible 1,700 years after it was, essentially, codified.
Again, I don't trust that as the authority, but I would trust it even less so if they went contrary to what they authorized prior.
This is one of the bigger issues imo. The Church claims the mantle (Since no one beyond themselves or a politician gave it to them) and then claims that they can warp things as they see fit. They can within the confines of their religion, however they cannot unilaterally do this to Christianity- which existed well before them. So it is entirely appropriate for non-Catholics to leap frog their teachings and go back to the way it was orginially taught- no images.
I think we've drifted a bit here. I'm not talking about making representations of God, I'm talking about the use of images. I'm pretty sure you've made it clear that you're pretty much against the use of *all* images:
We would have to define images. If you think an image is curtains or building architecture, then we are not discussing the same thing. Honestly, I don't think we're disagreeing unless you're saying it's appropriate to pray/worship to the image as a symbol of God.
Is that really the case? So how, as I ask above, where some documents considered canonical, and some weren't? Why was Hebrews included, but not the Didache, or Pope Clement's letter? Who made these decisions, why did they make them, and why did people like St Augustine declare that without the Church's authority on this, he wouldn't have believed a lick of it?
They weren't accept because they were canonical to begin with. The early Christian congregation had no need to acknowledge a pope when they acknowledged the apostles and governing body. Just because a writing is about Christianity, does not mean that it belongs in the Bible.
In the OT, there are many references to a book describing the goings ons of the kings of Israel. However, they are no where to be found. Why? Because they weren't necessary. They were simply historical artifacts not meant to tie the Bible together.
Likewise, the writings you mention are not in unity with the rest of the NT just because they are mostly like the writings of the NT, so it's understandable why they would be rejected.
That's not the case: We have archaeological evidence from before canon was established of Christians making rudimentary 'churhes' in private homes and in catacombs. We can see their early depictions of Christ. We have testimony from St Justin Martyr of how these people prayed to God, what they did and said in Mass; these are traditions that predate the 27 documents of Scripture.
No one is dusputing that. The dispute was entirely on the Church's role in deciding what made up the NT. I say they didn't play a role in it at all except to firm up their own faith.
JGS, we know that the Bible doesn't and didn't explain the entire faith. For starters, the early Christians didn't have the 27 documents you rely on to practice their faith - they had to rely on the oral traditions handed out by the Apostles. And then we have 'official' teaching documents like the Didache that discuss things that are not dealt with in the New or Old Testament. The epistles themselves were not designed to lay out every facet of the faith: They were things address to specific churches at specific times to aid in doctrinal and dogmatic disagreements. Plus, we have the heresies of Nestorianism, Pelagianism and Arianism - these arose precisely because Scripture is not clear on several parts of the faith.
I'm not necessarily disputing this either. Jesus fortold that Christianity would evolve over a short period and then be overtaken by false religion. Because Christianity was so initially tied to the Jews, then Doctrine adjusted to let them know Jewish Law was not needed. In addition, the message had to evolve as it spread to lands amost entirely Gentile. However, as letters were written, commandments made, the congregation adapted to it. Everything that was written in the Bible was completed by the end of the 1st century. By the begining of the 2nd century, the apostasy that was fortold had already started (As seen in Revelation 1 as well as the letters of John.
And how can you say it grew in a 'much different way than the tradition Biblically'? (I'm not even really sure what you mean.) We have accounts from St Justin-Martyr and other Church Fathers of the mass, of bishops, of the Councils. We have St Peter being given the keys of heaven and the power to 'bind and loose' on Earth in Scripture. We have the records of the Church going back to the very beginning.
I mean that the authority you claim the church has used that authority to change what they originally accepted. Use of images is the example we're discussing.
Peter's keys to the kingdom has to do with Christian Doctrine, not just Catholic and adopting him as a saint does not mean Peter actually was Catholic by belief. I suppose if you say the Catholic church authorized it because Peter was Catholic, I suppose you may have a point. But it still does not explain the belief shift.
The early heresies of the Church arose precisely because Scripture doesn't lay it all out; here is a lot of our faith that we know because the Holy Spirit guided the Church through these periods of significant disagreement. Look at the Nestorian, Donatist, Pelagian, and Arian heresies, and how these were combated. It's not as if the dudes on the losing side of these battles were ignorant of Scripture - they were just making misguided attempts at looking deeper into the faith.
I disagree. The early heresies arose because they were what the majority of worshippers wanted to do in violation of Doctrine.
One only has to look at the constant battle over circumcision. The command that circumcision was no longer enforceable started very soon after the establishment of the Christian congregation. However, it continued on for decades- not because the rule wasn't established (Along with abstaining from idols), but because the people were insistent that it was necessary. That's why there was an expectation that Christianity would remain small but growing- because the Doctrine would not be a popular one although it was a lifesaving one.
The great thing about Christianity is that it requires very few rules to live life. However, those few rules are pretty weighty and take a lot of effort, so it was not necessary to add more to it.
