301 Predator Priests...

[Terraceth]

But we are encouraged to confess our sins to one another (not actually done much or in great detail outside catholic circles - who do you trust?)

Actually, it's also very much a thing in the Eastern Orthodox Church from my understanding, although their specific customs and methodology of it are a little different from the Catholic Church's.

[Starlight]

I will simply note that contrary to what most if not all skeptics believe, the Bible is far less ambiguous and open to interpretation than the technical standards you describe. Skeptics who claim otherwise are speaking from ignorance.

Technical standards at least have the advantage that the people writing them are trying to be clear and precise and exact and outline a consistent specification. The bible writers are all over the place about pretty much everything.

An it is not ignorance of the Bible that makes people think biblical interpretation is complex, it is knowledge of it. The simplest mind in the world can approach the bible in complete ignorance and say "this is so easy I can just read it and know the answers" (as you yourself demonstrate), but once an intelligent person actually studies the various interpretations for many years the realize that it's actually far far more complex than that, and that translation issues socio-cultural differences and various possible interpretations mean it is foolish to just try and ignorantly "read the bible" and expect to come away with anything remotely close to the author's intended meaning.

If you accept the premise that God exists, if only for the sake of argument, then you can accept that he can guide us to a proper understanding.

Which is why the Catholics are right and you are wrong, because he guided them, not you. Obviously.

[Tassman]

The Councils nailed down the details of the Trinity and Hypostatic Union when they were disputed, though they didn't come up with them.

Well the Councils did come up with the doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union inasmuch as they had to define what was meant by Christians saying that Jesus was God and yet maintain the concept of monotheism. The definitions were necessary to counter the many heretical explanations, which were rife, of what are essentially contradictory doctrines.

They actually didn't authorize the canon of scripture,

The Council of Trent did actually, as a counter to the Reformation.

however; the 22 OT books were in agreement with the list accepted by the Jews, with a varying number of deuterocanonical works also accepted as useful. The first list of NT books in agreement with those accepted today is from a letter penned by Athanasius in the 4th century, but that was never voted on in council either.

The collection of New Testament books took place gradually over many years by the pressure of various kinds of circumstances and influences as some writings came into favour and others were excluded. The first time there is a reference to the NT canon as we have it today was not until Athanasius’ list of canonical books in the fourth century...as you say...and this was quite late.

But, my main concern was to counter MM’s ridiculous dismissal of the RCC tradition as a cult that deifies sinful men and worships a false God. As I said, if anything is an heretical cult worshipping "false gods", it is Evangelicalism and Protestantism in general NOT the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The latter have dominated Christianity for most of its history.

[One Bad Pig]

It's the whole "Forgive me, father, for I have sinned" thing. It's not his place.

According to a straightforward interpretation of John 20:21-23 and Mat. 18:15-18, it is. Even in confession, however, my priest does not say, "I forgive" but "may God forgive" through the laying on of hands of "a sinful priest".

If I've sinned against God then I need to go directly to him.

Which is what I do in confession; the priest is there explicitly as a witness and to give advice on how to fight it.

What would you say if someone came to you and said, "I've sinned against God! Can you ask him to forgive me?" I would say, "No, you need to ask him yourself."

I would say, "sure, but you need to go to God too."

[One Bad Pig]

I don't think that is what they do though. don't they just ask the saints to intercede for them? Basically I heard it explained as the same as when you ask your friends to pray for you. My question is how can the saints hear prayers in the first place and how can they hear prayers for thousands of people at a time? Seems logistically impossible for anyone who is not omniscient. Plus it would take up all of their time. Seems like a lot of work for heaven.

Can the saints physically hear me? I doubt it. Can the Holy Spirit make it possible? I dare say yes. Further, I don't see time as a constraint in heaven. I don't know about you, but I don't consider praying for others "work". I am happy to do so.

[One Bad Pig]

Well, for starters, despite what you'll sometimes see in popular entertainment, the line is actually "Bless me, father, for I have sinned."

I don't know about Catholicism, but the Orthodox response is, "May the blessing of the Lord be upon you."

[One Bad Pig]

Well the Councils did come up with the doctrines of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union inasmuch as they had to define what was meant by Christians saying that Jesus was God and yet maintain the concept of monotheism. The definitions were necessary to counter the many heretical explanations, which were rife, of what are essentially contradictory doctrines.

The Councils didn't come up with anything new; what they did was definitively decide between two (or more) interpretations, and in a couple cases, safeguard their decision via the formulation of creeds.

The Council of Trent did actually, as a counter to the Reformation.

Yes, but only for Catholics - and defining a canon after 1500 years is a bit odd, IMO.

The collection of New Testament books took place gradually over many years by the pressure of various kinds of circumstances and influences as some writings came into favour and others were excluded. The first time there is a reference to the NT canon as we have it today was not until Athanasius’ list of canonical books in the fourth century...as you say...and this was quite late.

There are a number of lists before that, none of which vary substantially with it. Most of them are quoted or alluded to even before Irenaeus in the late 2nd century. There are a couple others alluded to here and there, but the difference in reference to those which eventually were part of the recognized canon and those which were not is stark.

But, my main concern was to counter MM’s ridiculous dismissal of the RCC tradition as a cult that deifies sinful men and worships a false God. As I said, if anything is an heretical cult worshipping "false gods", it is Evangelicalism and Protestantism in general NOT the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The latter have dominated Christianity for most of its history.

Eh, I wouldn't consider Evangelicals/Protestants in general to be worshipping 'false gods'; most could at least be considered Chalcedonians, and the only Council they tend to take issue with is the 7th, which dogmatized icons.

[carpedm9587]

[One Bad Pig]

You're going to get crumbs on the floor!

[Tassman]

The Councils didn't come up with anything new; what they did was definitively decide between two (or more) interpretations, and in a couple cases, safeguard their decision via the formulation of creeds.

Oh certainly. But the variations of belief re the Trinity and the Double Nature of Christ were breeding grounds of heresy and some “heresies”, e.g. Arianism, nearly took over orthodoxy as the dominant form of Christianity. The Creeds were/are not so much statements of belief as warnings of what NOT to believe if one is "to be saved”...to quote the Athanasian Creed.

Yes, but only for Catholics - and defining a canon after 1500 years is a bit odd, IMO.

Yes somewhat late! It was a part of the Church getting its house in order in the face of the Protestant Reformation; it was the Counter Reformation.

There are a number of lists before that, none of which vary substantially with it. Most of them are quoted or alluded to even before Irenaeus in the late 2nd century. There are a couple others alluded to here and there, but the difference in reference to those which eventually were part of the recognized canon and those which were not is stark.

Oh there were lots and not such "stark" differences really. The New Testament came together gradually via a series of councils and popular usage until the books became the standard for most of Christianity. But there were some that barely scraped into the canon, e.g. Hebrews, 2 Peter and Revelation et al were widely disputed. And some that were ultimately excluded e.g. the Third Epistle to the Corinthians was included in some early lists of sacred writings and the Shepherd of Hermas was widely popular and had great influence in the first couple of centuries of Christianity.

Eh, I wouldn't consider Evangelicals/Protestants in general to be worshipping 'false gods'; most could at least be considered Chalcedonians, and the only Council they tend to take issue with is the 7th, which dogmatized icons.

I was taking MM to task for falsely accusing the orthodox tradition of doing just that. This is especially ironic given that the Protestant tradition is so recent compared to the original Church and it invests ALL authority in the very scripture that the despised original church put together over the centuries.

[Charles]

You also assume that one must interpret scripture without supernatural guidance. If you accept the premise that God exists, if only for the sake of argument, then you can accept that he can guide us to a proper understanding.

I have talked to some who believe they read the Bible with supernatural guidance. They disagree with your interpretation. Problem not solved.

[Leonhard]

I don't know about Catholicism, but the Orthodox response is, "May the blessing of the Lord be upon you."

"May the Lord be on your lips and in your heart that you may properly confess all
your sins, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost"

Sometimes varies slightly.

[One Bad Pig]

Oh certainly. But the variations of belief re the Trinity and the Double Nature of Christ were breeding grounds of heresy and some “heresies”, e.g. Arianism, nearly took over orthodoxy as the dominant form of Christianity.

Arianism needed the support of emperors to have a shot, and notably failed once that support disappeared.

The Creeds were/are not so much statements of belief as warnings of what NOT to believe if one is "to be saved”...to quote the Athanasian Creed.

Eh, sort of. The Nicene Creed did originally include anathemas, but those were dropped in the reformulation at Constantinople. Ironic that you reference the Athanasian Creed, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Athanasius, and AFAIK was not promulgated by any council.

Oh there were lots and not such "stark" differences really. The New Testament came together gradually via a series of councils and popular usage until the books became the standard for most of Christianity.

I can't think of a single council which pronounced anything to do with the canon.

But there were some that barely scraped into the canon, e.g. Hebrews, 2 Peter and Revelation et al were widely disputed.

Hebrews was disputed because of confusion regarding its authorship; Revelation, because it was deeply connected with chiliasm, an early heresy.

And some that were ultimately excluded e.g. the Third Epistle to the Corinthians was included in some early lists of sacred writings and the Shepherd of Hermas was widely popular and had great influence in the first couple of centuries of Christianity.

Yes, the Shepherd of Hermas was widely popular early. The so-called Third Epistle to the Corinithans, not so much; I remember it chiefly because someone admitted to having composed it pseudonymously and was roundly condemned for it. Hat tip to Tertullian.

[JimL]

What the freak happened to the Catholic Church! Pure evil...

Don't leave out the Protestants, seer. Somehow Catholics seem to get all the publicity, but according to some studies the protestants are even worse offenders. Seems the pure evil is spread throughout Christendom.

[Tassman]

Arianism needed the support of emperors to have a shot, and notably failed once that support disappeared.

The same applies to Christianity itself. Christianity would not have developed into the dominant force that it became had it not been promoted by the emperor Constantine and his successors from the fourth century onward...especially Theodosius I, who made it the Empire's sole authorised religion.

Eh, sort of. The Nicene Creed did originally include anathemas, but those were dropped in the reformulation at Constantinople. Ironic that you reference the Athanasian Creed, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Athanasius, and AFAIK was not promulgated by any council.

The Athanasian Creed is the authoritative statement against Trinitarian and Christological heresies in the Western Church. ALL the creeds were written and accepted by the Church as the official statements of orthodoxy.

I can't think of a single council which pronounced anything to do with the canon.

The development of the New Testament canon was a slow and gradual process and was based upon general acceptance and tradition...including by the Councils.

Hebrews was disputed because of confusion regarding its authorship; Revelation, because it was deeply connected with chiliasm, an early heresy.

There are numerous pseudepigraphical works in the NT including several “Pauline” Epistles. And the authorship of the Gospels is not known.

Yes, the Shepherd of Hermas was widely popular early. The so-called Third Epistle to the Corinithans, not so much; I remember it chiefly because someone admitted to having composed it pseudonymously and was roundly condemned for it. Hat tip to Tertullian.

See above re pseudepigraphical works.

The Shepherd of Hermas and many other scriptures may well have ended up as New Testament canonical texts, e.g. 1st Clement was included in several collections of Christian texts as was the Didache, which is one of the earliest texts that ultimately failed to make it into the canonical New Testament,