Don't sell those Rosary beeds?

Tim Robbins

Interesting letter in today's Times (see below). I think it represents a range of views with Protestanism with respect to their relationship with RC Church.

SELLING ROSARIES IN ST PATRICK'S CATHEDRAL

Madam, - During a recent visit to St Patrick's Church of Ireland cathedral in Dublin, I was disappointed to discover a wide range of rosary beads for sale in the cathedral shop. I subsequently wrote to the Dean of St Patrick's, on behalf of the Evangelical Protestant Society, to request that these beads be withdrawn.

I said that while I freely recognised that not everything in the shop should be required to reflect a Protestant ethos, I felt that nothing on sale should actually conflict with that ethos.

The Rosary and the beads associated with it have no place within Protestantism and ought not to be found, for sale or otherwise, in a Protestant church. I further suggested that the space currently occupied by such emblems of Romanism would be better used, for example, to stock for example, a range of evangelical Christian literature.

Readers might be interested in the dean's reply. He advised me that the beads are sold because the majority of visitors were not Anglicans, and "if these visual aids are of use to them so much the better". His attitude is, of course, typical of the ecumenical movement and its leaders who, as the blind leading the blind, are quite content to call darkness light and light darkness.

The dean also pointed out that he doesn't share my view of Protestantism. Needless to say, neither I nor any other Bible-believing Protestant share his. - Yours, etc,

WALLACE THOMPSON, Secretary, Evangelical Protestant Society, Belfast.

biko

Protestant have perceived themselves to be under threat from RC for quite some time and I think it's understandable that they (or at least some) think it is somewhat offending selling artefacts from a different religion in their churches.

If this was happening in Belfast I'd be more understanding than when it's happening in St Patrick's Church of Ireland cathedral in Dublin...

Caveat

You may not like it, it may be pompous and uncharitable, but I think the 'complaint' is fair enough.

The secretary of the Evangeleical Protestant Society is hardly a representative view of protestantism either.

PDN

I wonder if they were Catholic rosary beads or Anglican ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Rosary

A classic case of 'If you can't beat them, then join them'?

Tim Robbins

Caveat wrote: »

The secretary of the Evangeleical Protestant Society is hardly a representative view of protestantism either.

Nor is the Dean of St Patrick's it would appear. I think it's a classic case of the Ulster folk being ethnocentric in ways some of us find difficult to understand.

Caveat

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it's a classic case of the Ulster folk being ethnocentric in ways some of us find difficult to understand.

It's more than that - The EPS is not even a religion, it's a minority ultra conservative pressure group of biblical fundamentalists with strong orange order ties. They are cranks and bigots. They represent no-one but their own members.

Taking their views seriously is akin to taking the rantings of Justin Barrett to be representative of catholics.

The vast majority of COI, methodist, baptist and presbyterian members, both north and south do not hold these views.

Tim Robbins

Caveat wrote: »

The vast majority of COI, methodist, baptist and presbyterian members, both north and south do not hold these views.

That's good to hear. Thank you for the education. I google him but couldn't find much. It would be interesting to see if there is any response from the denominations you mentioned.

If I may ask, in a previous post you said the complaint was "valid" and now you describe those who espouse the view as "ultra conservative pressure group of biblical fundamentalists" and the majority of the protestants would not hold these views.
I am not saying you are contradicting yourself, but perhaps you'd elaborate on your views.

Caveat

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That's good to hear. Thank you for the education. I google him but couldn't find much. It would be interesting to see if there is any response from the denominations you mentioned.

If I may ask, in a previous post you said the complaint was "valid" and now you describe those who espouse the view as "ultra conservative pressure group of biblical fundamentalists" and the majority of the protestants would not hold these views.
I am not saying you are contradicting yourself, but perhaps you'd elaborate on your views.

I have to come clean - I am agnostic (but from a COI background). Maybe I shouldn't even be posting here

When I said "the vast majority of...do not hold these views" I was referring to the views of the EPS in general. Groups can espouse extreme views but still occasionally have 'a point' regarding something or other.

Protestantism on this island gets a bad press not least for historical/political reasons - which is understandable - but also because people often equate the orange order, free presbyterianism and the likes of the EPS with the faith, which is unfair as these are all minority interests. It just so happens that being a protestant is usually a prerequisite. It's almost like equating support for republican violence with catholicism.

The COI in particular is a progressive, liberal and democratic church in my experience.

As regards my view that the complaint was fair, well selling catholic 'items' in a COI church seems unusual to me - if not perhaps inappropriate.
It doesn't bother me but I can understand that it would maybe bother others, that's all. I'm just trying to look at it objectively.

If there was a protestant equivalent of rosaries (I can't actually think of one) would catholics be completely tolerant of these being sold in cathedrals? I'd imagine there would be at least some resistance.

Tim Robbins

Caveat wrote: »

I have to come clean - I am agnostic (but from a COI background). Maybe I shouldn't even be posting here

When I said "the vast majority of...do not hold these views" I was referring to the views of the EPS in general. Groups can espouse extreme views but still occasionally have 'a point' regarding something or other.

Protestantism on this island gets a bad press not least for historical/political reasons - which is understandable - but also because people often equate the orange order, free presbyterianism and the likes of the EPS with the faith, which is unfair as these are all minority interests. It just so happens that being a protestant is usually a prerequisite. It's almost like equating support for republican violence with catholicism.

The COI in particular is a progressive, liberal and democratic church in my experience.

As regards my view that the complaint was fair, well selling catholic 'items' in a COI church seems unusual to me - if not perhaps inappropriate.
It doesn't bother me but I can understand that it would maybe bother others, that's all. I'm just trying to look at it objectively.

If there was a protestant equivalent of rosaries (I can't actually think of one) would catholics be completely tolerant of these being sold in cathedrals? I'd imagine there would be at least some resistance.

But isn't the concept of a church, design, layout, organisation and having a Bible all just taken from the RC church? All they are doing is changing minor aspects of it. Furthermore, whose Church is it?
The Anglicans or God's but certainly not the EPS'. The EPS can certainly speaks for themselves but surely it is up to the Anglicans to decide what they do in their Church.

Caveat

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But isn't the concept of a church, design, layout, organisation and having a Bible all just taken from the RC church? All they are doing is changing minor aspects of it.

Sorry, I don't understand your point - and who is changing minor aspects - do you mean protestants in general or the EPS?

whose church is it - certainly not the EPS'.

Agreed. Most definitely not.

The EPS can certainly speaks for themselves but surely it is up to the Anglicans to decide what they do in their Church.

Yes I'm sure it is - but St Patrick's is a focal point for a lot of protestant denominations - most COI members & some presbyterians for example would have an affinity. The church would rely on certain protestant branches to make up the congregation - and as such, I don't think their sensitivities are completely ignored. The Dean however seemed to dismiss the EPS concerns - quite rightly IMO as regardless of whether some extremists may have a 'point', it is rarely a good idea to be seen to agree with people like this on anything as it runs the risk of offending more than it would appease.

But would you not also say that it is up to the Catholic church to decide what they do in thieir churches? and if so, does that mean nothing they decide can or should be questioned?

Again, if protestant relics/symbols were sold in the grounds of Catholic churches do you not think there would be at least some complaints?

The EPS appear to have been quite vocal about this but I would doubt that there have been no other queries about this.

Tim Robbins

Caveat wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand your point - and who is changing minor aspects - do you mean protestants in general or the EPS?

I meant Protestants in general. I don't get the way they say
"ah well that's Roman Catholic" but one could argue their entire religion is just a derivative of Roman Catholicism. Why have the exact same New Testament (all 27 books) , Trinity, celebration of Christmas etc. etc. and then moan over Rosary beeds?

But would you not also say that it is up to the Catholic church to decide what they do in thieir churches? and if so, does that mean nothing they decide can or should be questioned?

Yes they decide and anyone can question. But surely only member can complain. Why gives the right for non-members to speak for members?

Again, if protestant relics/symbols were sold in the grounds of Catholic churches do you not think there would be at least some complaints?

Of course they're would. However I think the other way is more non-sensical because the Protestant Churches are all derivatives from the RC Church.
It just doesn't make sense to me. It's a bit like Americans telling British people what is true English. Excuse the cringy analogy. Of course you could just as easily say it's a bit like the Italians showing the British how to play Soccer which they invariably do.

Caveat

I don't get the way they say
"ah well that's Roman Catholic"

Because it is. Simple as that. Are you saying that protestants with their attendant customs/beliefs that are not shared by Roman Catholics do not have a right to exist or something?

but one could argue their entire religion is just a derivative of Roman Catholicism.

...and both are forms of christianity - does it matter which came first?

Why have the exact same New Testament (all 27 books) , Trinity, celebration of Christmas etc. etc.

...because that is their belief.

and then moan over Rosary beeds?

...just as you have admitted that catholics would 'moan' if the situation were reversed.

Why gives the right for non-members to speak for members?

What exactly are you referring to here?

However I think the other way is more non-sensical because the Protestant Churches are all derivatives from the RC Church.

You don't seem to accept that protestants can have their own customs/beliefs. Obviously there will be similarities as both are christian denominations. I'm sure you know that protestantism originated as a 'breakaway' reformed church - protesting about various aspects of catholicism? Of course you do. It is simplistic to say protestantism is merely derivative - of course they maintained many core aspects, customs and beliefs from the established church but they are a religion (one of the largest in the world) in their own right.

Are Austrians merely derivative of Germans? They used to be part of the same country.

Please tell me you are not trying to say that Catholicism is the one and only true christian religion and that all others are inferior and mere facsimiles, changing certain aspects 'just to be different' ?

Because to be honest, that's what it sounds like.

Tim Robbins

Caveat wrote: »

...and both are forms of christianity - does it matter which came first?

It's not just that one came first, it's that one was a derivative from the other. Protestant Church did nto just spring up independently.

You don't seem to accept that protestants can have their own customs/beliefs.

Of course they can. I just find it slightly amusing they way they try to argue they are truer Christians then the group they got the idea from.

Please tell me you are not trying to say that Catholicism is the one and only true christian religion and that all others are inferior and mere facsimiles, changing certain aspects 'just to be different' ?
Because to be honest, that's what it sounds like.

I don't believe any of them so its certainly not for me to say which is true and which isn't.

I just find bizarre the way some Protestants have so much faith in some aspects which they effectively got from the Roman Catholic church e.g. New Testament but find other parts incredulous e.g. Rosary beeds.

Let's just say the scripture is wrong but the Rosary beeds is right. What then? How are they so sure the Canon is right but the rosary beeds are wrong? Do they have more evidence then the RC Church or something?

What happens if the RC made little edits to the Canonical Gospels, how would Protestant Churches even know if there are no full original copies of any of the Gospels?

Nobody even knows who, when or why Canon was even decided. So how is it the Protestant Churches co-incidently have the exact same Canon as the Roman Catholic Church for the New Testament? Remember Canon is only a sub selection of scripture. There are other Gospels, the Gnostic for example. So why do they take the exact same sub-selection? Why did they have so much faith the sub-selection was correct when nobody knows exactly the process the decided the sub-selection in the first place?

philologos

The Rosary and the beads associated with it have no place within Protestantism and ought not to be found, for sale or otherwise, in a Protestant church. I further suggested that the space currently occupied by such emblems of Romanism would be better used, for example, to stock for example, a range of evangelical Christian literature.

Anglican rosary is practised among members of the High Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Rosary

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I just find bizarre the way some Protestants have so much faith in some aspects which they effectively got from the Roman Catholic church e.g. New Testament but find other parts incredulous e.g. Rosary beeds.

Let's just say the scripture is wrong but the Rosary beeds is right. What then? How are they so sure the Canon is right but the rosary beeds are wrong? Do they have more evidence then the RC Church or something?

What happens if the RC made little edits to the Canonical Gospels, how would Protestant Churches even know if there are no full original copies of any of the Gospels?

Nobody even knows who, when or why Canon was even decided. So how is it the Protestant Churches co-incidently have the exact same Canon as the Roman Catholic Church for the New Testament? Remember Canon is only a sub selection of scripture. There are other Gospels, the Gnostic for example. So why do they take the exact same sub-selection? Why did they have so much faith the sub-selection was correct when nobody knows exactly the process the decided the sub-selection in the first place?

Ok Tim careful here. The history of the canon has been discussed quite a bit. The Gnostic gospels have been fully discredited many times, please don't bring it up again as I just may term it Atheistic fundamentalism.

Both RC and Protestant denominations hold the Bible as being a divinely inspired book. Rc church puts as much emphasis on tradition of the church and the writings of certain church fathers; ie, Augustine, Polycarp, John Chrysostem, etc.

The protestant denominations do not put credence on the traditions and writings, unless they reconcile with Biblical truths.

Those are the similarities and differences.

Caveat

I just find it slightly amusing they way they try to argue they are truer Christians then the group they got the idea from.

When do 'they' do that? and who is 'they' - all protestants? If your opinions are formed merely by intolerance and generalisation then there's not much point in this.

As for the rest of your post, I am agnostic so I'm not here to argue about why someone believes something and someone else believes something else - it's up to them. All I'm defending is someone's right to believe. For some reason you seem to have more difficulty accepting one belief than the other - despite professing to believe neither. You have conveniently ignored some of the more supernatural aspects of catholicism that protestantism has rejected in favour of more practical elements and in general, have dodged questions throughout.

In fact, I'm not even sure why you posted originally - what did you regard as noteworthy? The 'complaint' by the EPS? or the fact that the Dean dismissed the complaint? or the fact that the two sides disagreed? Or something else?

Or is the whole thing just a troll :rolleyes:

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Both RC and Protestant denominations hold the Bible as being a divinely inspired book. Rc church puts as much emphasis on tradition of the church and the writings of certain church fathers; ie, Augustine, Polycarp, John Chrysostem, etc.

The protestant denominations do not put credence on the traditions and writings, unless they reconcile with Biblical truths.

Those are the similarities and differences.

I accept that Brian. But what I am questioning is the reasoning why is one part ok and another one part not ok?

Suppose another Church derived itself from your Church and decided that Gospels were not true but Corinthians was. I am sure you would wonder why they thought one part was true and the other not.

No atheist fundamentalism intended. I am actually doing my best not to bring atheism into it.

Tim Robbins

Caveat wrote: »

All I'm defending is someone's right to believe.

All I am doing is questioning why does one person belief one thing, while another believs another?
I am interesting in the pyschology of it.

You have conveniently ignored some of the more supernatural aspects of catholicism that protestantism has rejected in favour of more practical elements and in general, have dodged questions throughout.

Well apologies. Perhpas state the question cleary and I will try to answer it.

In fact, I'm not even sure why you posted originally - what did you regard as noteworthy? The 'complaint' by the EPS? or the fact that the Dean dismissed the complaint? or the fact that the two sides disagreed? Or something else?

I am interested in why one Protestant thinks one part of RC is ok while the other does not? In fact why do any of them think parts of absolutly correct while other parts are absolutely incorrect. It raises the hole questions of beliefs, how they are established in the first place.

Caveat

I am interested in why one Protestant thinks one part of RC is ok while the other does not?

Confirms my suspicions. It is because...believe it or not...not all protestants are the same or have the same beliefs!!!! Astonishing eh?

Maybe you would like to answer the following then:

Are Austrians merely derivative of Germans? They used to be part of the same country.

Are you saying that protestants with their attendant customs/beliefs that are not shared by Roman Catholics do not have a right to exist or something?

"Why gives the right for non-members to speak for members?"

What exactly are you referring to here?

When do 'they' do that? and who is 'they' - all protestants?

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins said:

I am interested in why one Protestant thinks one part of RC is ok while the other does not? It raises the hole questions of beliefs, how they are established in the first place.

Protestantism in no sense looks back to the Roman Catholic Church as its mother. Most of the Protestant denominations originated in men who left Rome, but they saw themselves as carrying on the apostolic faith and Rome as having apostasised from it.

Hmm, a bit like if Tony Benn had left the Labour Party when Tony Blair took over and formed another party claiming to be the real socialists. One could point to the money, power, administration, etc. as proof that Blair's is the authentic Labour Party. Other's would point to the policies and practices as proof Benn's is the authentic one.

If you care to lift a Bible and compare it with, say, the Baptist Confession of Faith and an RC equivalent, you may see what I mean.

Tim Robbins

Caveat wrote: »

"Are Austrians merely derivative of Germans? They used to be part of the same country."QUOTE]
Correct, but before that they were part of a separate empire, monarchy etc.

Are you saying that protestants with their attendant customs/beliefs that are not shared by Roman Catholics do not have a right to exist or something?

Of course they have a right to exist, but surely we can be curious and inquistive about any differing view.

"Why gives the right for non-members to speak for members?"

This is a generic maxim.If I am member of a G.A.A. club, you of course have the right to question me, but do you have the right to speak for me? The EPS does not have the right to speak for the Anglican but of course he has a right to question him.

Tim Robbins

wolfsbane wrote: »

If you care to lift a Bible and compare it with, say, the Baptist Confession of Faith and an RC equivalent, you may see what I mean.

Name one book that is part of Protestant Bible's New Testament that is not part of the Roman Catholic's?
They are the same. Do you know what the statistical probability of that is?

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I accept that Brian. But what I am questioning is the reasoning why is one part ok and another one part not ok?.

It depends on the part. The Bible is the authority. if some act or doctrine contradicts the Bible, then you have to punt it.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Suppose another Church derived itself from your Church and decided that Gospels were not true but Corinthians was. I am sure you would wonder why they thought one part was true and the other not. .

I would not consider them Christian. One of the tenets of being a Christian is accepting the authority of the Bible, which includes the gospels. If being a Christian means following the teachings of Christ, and those teachings are in the gospels, then you have to have them.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No atheist fundamentalism intended. I am actually doing my best not to bring atheism into it.

Thanks, I didn't think so.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote: »

I would not consider them Christian. One of the tenets of being a Christian is accepting the authority of the Bible, which includes the gospels. If being a Christian means following the teachings of Christ, and those teachings are in the gospels, then you have to have them.

Suppose there never was a RC Church, people remained pagans. Where would any Protestant or Reformed Church got the Bible from?

DublinWriter

For more on this, listen to the discussion on today's Liveline.

The Dean of the Church stated that the shop contributes 80% to the expensive upkeep of the Cathedral and that they don't receive any state funding.

Joe Duffy said to the person complaining today that the shop also sold jigsaws, and where exactly in the Bible did it say that jigsaws were forbidden?

The COI people who rang in to defend the Dean acquitted themselves really well and showed that religious tolerance in the ROI is light years ahead as opposed to the attitude of the original complainer from NI.

Tim Robbins

DublinWriter wrote: »

The COI people who rang in to defend the Dean acquitted themselves really well and showed that religious tolerance in the ROI is light years ahead as opposed to the attitude of the original complainer from NI.

Doesn't surprise me. Any COI person I have ever met here always seems relaxed, liberal, tolerant.

BrianCalgary

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Suppose there never was a RC Church, people remained pagans. Where would any Protestant or Reformed Church got the Bible from?

The Bible was copied by monks. Mostly in Ireland in the Dark Ages.

When the monks went out into Europe in the 8the century they actually clashed with the RC church.

So the RC church was not th eonly keeper of the sacred documents. Not to mention the role of the Eastern orthodox church.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Of course they have a right to exist, but surely we can be curious and inquistive about any differing view.

Indeed we can be. Exploring differing theologies through debate and questioning is one of the most interesting things man can do.

This woman however was incorrect to say that rosaries should not be sold in an Anglican Church. They are there for the purpose of the Anglican Rosary.

As for the books of the Bible discussed by Wolfsbane the official doctrine of the Anglican Church on the Deuterocanonical books is as follows:

39 Articles of Religion wrote:

6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be
proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those
canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, The First Book of Samuel, The Second Book of Samuel, The First Book of Kings, The Second Book of Kings, The First Book of Chronicles, The Second Book of Chronicles, The First Book of Esdras, The Second Book of Esdras, The Book of Esther, The Book of Job, The Psalms, The Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or Preacher, Cantica or Songs of Solomon, Four Prophets the greater & Twelve Prophets the less.

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners;
but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Tobias, The Book of Judith, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Book of Wisdom, Jesus the Son of Sirach, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of Manasses, The First Book of Maccabees & The Second Book of Maccabees

All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them
Canonical.

wolfsbane

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Name one book that is part of Protestant Bible's New Testament that is not part of the Roman Catholic's?
They are the same. Do you know what the statistical probability of that is?

About 100%, if they both took them from the same source. I dare say the same applies to secular literature.

wolfsbane

Jakkass said:

As for the books of the Bible discussed by Wolfsbane the official doctrine of the Anglican Church on the Deuterocanonical books is as follows:

Yes, it gives the crucial difference between the Canonical and Deuterocanonical:
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be
proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be
thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

and

the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners;
but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Doesn't surprise me. Any COI person I have ever met here always seems relaxed, liberal, tolerant.

I wouldn't say we are all liberal. I'm personally willing to enter into discussions on ecumenism etc, brilliant service took place in my own church this week actually between the Methodists, Catholics, Presbyterians and ourselves, was very encouraging. It's a good thing to think about on Christian Unity Week really.

I don't think we should compromise our doctrine, but at the same time I don't think we should rule out discussion with other groups of people in a respectful manner to look at the logic behind other doctrines and theologies even outside the Christian faith.

Michael G

PDN wrote: »

I wonder if they were Catholic rosary beads or Anglican ones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglican_Rosary

Hardly Anglican. As far as I know the High Church element of Anglicanism is more or less absent from the Church of Ireland.

Michael G

DublinWriter wrote: »

Joe Duffy said to the person complaining today that the shop also sold jigsaws, and where exactly in the Bible did it say that jigsaws were forbidden?

A characteristically fatuous remark by Mr Duffy. The Rosary represents something at odds with evangelical Protestant beliefs. A jigsaw is just a toy.

DublinWriter wrote: »

The COI people who rang in to defend the Dean acquitted themselves really well and showed that religious tolerance in the ROI is light years ahead as opposed to the attitude of the original complainer from NI.

As a Catholic, I am much more in sympathy with the man who made the complaint. I would not be happy to find something for sale in a Catholic church, a book for example, that contradicted Catholic belief. "Religious tolerance" is not the same as indifferentism or syncretism. It means being honest about but respectful of our differences about very important things. It doesn't mean we should all be swimming around in the same tasteless watery soup.

Tim Robbins

wolfsbane wrote: »

About 100%, if they both took them from the same source.

Are you saying there was single source for Canon and the decision for which books would make up the New Testament - all news to me. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate.

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The Bible was copied by monks. Mostly in Ireland in the Dark Ages.

When the monks went out into Europe in the 8the century they actually clashed with the RC church.

So the RC church was not th eonly keeper of the sacred documents. Not to mention the role of the Eastern orthodox church.

Brian, I know the documents weren't written by the RC Church. My point is who Where did the Monks get the Bible from?

Note: I think the problem in this discussions is when I say Bible I mean what is Canon, now copies of the different books that are in it.
Are you saying the Monks were copying the NT or just some books that co-incidentally ended up as Canon.

Run_to_da_hills

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Brian, I know the documents weren't written by the RC Church. My point is who Where did the Monks get the Bible from?

Note: I think the problem in this discussions is when I say Bible I mean what is Canon, now copies of the different books that are in it.
Are you saying the Monks were copying the NT or just some books that co-incidentally ended up as Canon.

There is not one history of the Bible, but two. One is a history of God preserving His words through His people. The other is of the devil using organised religion to pervert God's words through its "scholars."

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Are you saying there was single source for Canon and the decision for which books would make up the New Testament - all news to me. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate.

Tim, knowing how you love analogies , think on this.

Imagine that a nation developed a democratic government complete with a parliament, constitution, declaration of human rights etc. Then a military dictatorship took over the country and, for several generations, ran the place as a totalitarian regime. However, they still maintained a puppet parliament, and paid lip service to the constitution and declaration of human rights - but of course they added extra clauses that basically rendered the effect of these documents null and void. Finally people power prevails and democracy is restored to the nation. Parliament again functions and the constitution and declaration of human rights are stripped of their additions and once again become meaningful guarantees of the rights of the citizens. Would you claim that the new democracy owes its character to the military dictatorship? After all, they inherited parliament, the constitution, and the declaration of human rights from the previous regime. Would it not be more accurate to say that the new democrats simply restored the older democracy that had existed before the dictators took over?

This is exactly how non-Catholic Christians view Church history. The Scriptures were accepted as a Canon at a time when the Church was totally unrecognisable as Roman Catholicism. Then the Church became corrupted and began to add extra doctrines on that made the Scriptures ineffectual (eg the worship of images, rosary beads that directed prayer to Mary not to Christ, extra books in the Bible, infant baptism etc). Today non-Catholic Christians attempt to get back to the purity of the primitive Church before it was hijacked. Therefore they use the same Bible that the pre-Catholic Church used, and, I might add, the same Bible that was always used by Copts, Nestorians, Orthodox and other versions of Christianity that never submitted to the primacy of Rome.

lostexpectation

I have to say apart from it coming from these bigoted OO types, isnt' what he says make alot of sense (relatively) ie not praying through some object but directly through the word of god, not thinking that the bread becomes the body, not having the pope in between you and god, sounds very reasonable, I always thought that protestantism was some sort of political corruption of christianity, but it makes more sense then catholicism.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

This is exactly how non-Catholic Christians view Church history.

Yes I have heard that before and I think it is spin. None of the Protestant Churchs (Anglicans, Calvinist, Lutherans) etc were in existence before the RC Church only after.

The Scriptures were accepted as a Canon at a time when the Church was totally unrecognisable as Roman Catholicism.

]

Therefore they use the same Bible that the pre-Catholic Church used, and, I might add, the same Bible that was always used by Copts, Nestorians, Orthodox and other versions of Christianity that never submitted to the primacy of Rome.

There is no evidence of the New Testament been finalised and agreed before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. Somewhere along the way decision(s) had to made has to what was Canon and what was not? i.e.
Mathew, Mark, Luke and John all ok, but Thomas, Mary, Peter not.
In fact nobody knows when, where the Canon of New Testament was finalised and agreed. It just "sort of" happened.

You are arguing if all these decisions were made long before the arrival of the RC Chruch and the Protestants just returned to that. There is no evidence of this. We'd be better at discussing evidence rather than jumping into analogies.

I don't know why the Protestants on boards get so defensive about this. It was actually, Anglican theologian, Dr. Robert Beckford, and his documentary "Who wrote the Bible" were I found out about this.

Also the Catholic Enclyopedia states:

"The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council."

Caveat

Michael G wrote: »

Hardly Anglican. As far as I know the High Church element of Anglicanism is more or less absent from the Church of Ireland.

Yes ,you are correct.

A characteristically fatuous remark by Mr Duffy. The Rosary represents something at odds with evangelical Protestant beliefs. A jigsaw is just a toy.

As a Catholic, I am much more in sympathy with the man who made the complaint. I would not be happy to find something for sale in a Catholic church, a book for example, that contradicted Catholic belief. "Religious tolerance" is not the same as indifferentism or syncretism. It means being honest about but respectful of our differences about very important things. It doesn't mean we should all be swimming around in the same tasteless watery soup.

Good post Michael

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes I have heard that before and I think it is spin. None of the Protestant Churchs (Anglicans, Calvinist, Lutherans) etc were in existence before the RC Church only after.

You appear to have managed to miss the point completely. The Churches you mention are ones that attempted to get back to the doctrine & practice of the Christian Church as it existed pre-Roman Catholicism.

The Book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament record a Christian Church with no mention of purgatory, no mention of Roman primacy, no mention of a Pope, no mention of papal infallibility, no mention of infant baptism, no mention of the apocryphal books, no mention of the veneration or worship of Mary, no mention of the erection of statues, no mention of the Immaculate Conception, no mention of the Assumption of Mary, no mention of the canonisation of saints, no mention of relics, no mention of a class of clergy & priests, and no mention of rosary beads - in short, we see a Church in the Book of Acts that is unrecognisable as Roman Catholicism.

That is not spin. It is clear fact. In the early days of the Christian Church, when the Canon of Scripture was being formed, there was a complete absence of every distinctive feature of Roman Catholicism. The inescapable historical conclusion is that a portion of the Church (that in Western Europe) gradually added extra doctrines and practices until it developed into what we know as the Roman Catholic Church.

I would suggest you read one or two good Church History books (Protestant or Catholic, it doesn't matter, they all show the same historical development). A good starter for a newcomer to the subject would be A History of Christianity by Paul Johnson: http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Paul-Johnson/dp/0743282035
Johnson, former editor of The Spectator, is a Roman Catholic but has produced a very even-handed history of the Church. He clearly outlines how the distinctive features of Catholicism developed after the recognition of the Canon of Scripture.

You are arguing if all these decisions were made long before the arrival of the RC Chruch and the Protestants just returned to that. There is no evidence of this. We'd be better at discussing evidence rather than jumping into analogies.

I am happy to discuss evidence, but thought an analogy might help you since you appear to have hold of the wrong end of the stick entirely and are obviously not familiar with much of the evidence.

There is plenty of historical evidence of each of the 66 books contained in any modern Bible being used by churches prior to the development of the Roman Catholic Church. An example would be the Muratorian fragment of 170 AD http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html
This plainly identifies most of our New Testament books yet speaks of Pius as being simply the Bishop of the congregation in Rome, not ascribing him any position of primacy over the rest of the Churches.

Now, Tim, you wanted to discuss evidence. Maybe you would provide some evidence for the quite extraordinary and anachronistic claim that the distinctive features of Catholicism existed prior to the Church's use of any of the books that non-Catholic Christians recognise as scriptural?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

You appear to have managed to miss the point completely. The Churches you mention are ones that attempted to get back to the doctrine & practice of the Christian Church as it existed pre-Roman Catholicism.
The Book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament record a Christian Church with no mention of purgatory, no mention of Roman primacy, no mention of a Pope, no mention of papal infallibility, no mention of infant baptism, no mention of the apocryphal books, no mention of the veneration or worship of Mary, no mention of the erection of statues, no mention of the Immaculate Conception, no mention of the Assumption of Mary, no mention of the canonisation of saints, no mention of relics, no mention of a class of clergy & priests, and no mention of rosary beads - in short, we see a Church in the Book of Acts that is unrecognisable as Roman Catholicism.

Can we stick to the point please PDN?
You are talking about Roman Catholicism in general. In post 39, I am talking specifically about the Canon of the New Testament, not the worship of Mary, rosary beeds etc. So can we stick to that please?

There is plenty of historical evidence of each of the 66 books contained in any modern Bible being used by churches prior to the development of the Roman Catholic Church. An example would be the Muratorian fragment of 170 AD http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html
This plainly identifies most of our New Testament books yet speaks of Pius as being simply the Bishop of the congregation in Rome, not ascribing him any position of primacy over the rest of the Churches.

I am not discussing books of the Bible being used before the canon of the New Testament. Obviously books of the Bible were used before the Canon of the New Testament. But that is a separate issue. I am talking about the canonisation of it.

Now, Tim, you wanted to discuss evidence. Maybe you would provide some evidence for the quite extraordinary and anachronistic claim that the distinctive features of Catholicism existed prior to the Church's use of any of the books that non-Catholic Christians recognise as scriptural?

But that is not the claim I am trying to argue. Come on, are you straw manning?
Please let's stick specifically to the Canonisation of the New Testament.
Now you are saying that Protestants feel they are returning to the early Church before the RC corrupted it. Was the early Church using the exact same New Testament then?

It's as simple as this PDN:
Q.1 When were there books of New Testament decided?
Q.2 Was this decision made by what you see as a corrupt church? If not, who made it and why was it the correct decision?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can we stick to the point please PDN?
You are talking about Roman Catholicism in general. In post 39, I am talking specifically about the Canon of the New Testament, not the worship of Mary, rosary beeds etc. So can we stick to that please?

I am sticking to the point. You want to argue that the Canon of Scripture was inherited from the Catholic Church. Therefore it is important to know whether the Church at that time was indeed recognisable as Roman Catholicism or indeed was a pre-existing entity that more resembles modern Protestantism than Roman Catholicism.

My argument is that the Canon of Scripture was developed and recognised by a form of Christianity that was certainly not Roman Catholicism. I believe that there is abundant historical evidence for that position. I would like to hear any evidence you have that contradicts my thesis.

I am not discussing books of the Bible being used before the canon of the New Testament. Obviously books of the Bible were used before the Canon of the New Testament. But that is a separate issue. I am talking about the canonisation of it.

Again, I will make allowances for the fact that Church History is not a subject with which you are familiar. The official adoption of a doctrinal stance by a Church Council (be it the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture etc) are simply a way in which a Church recognises stuff that has already been going on for many years in church congregations. Therefore the date that a Church Council officially adopted 66 books as the Canon of Scripture has no relevance to the fact that the majority of Christians already used such a Canon. Therefore the use of biblical books is very relevant to the issue at hand.

Please let's stick specifically to the Canonisation of the New Testament.
Now you are saying that Protestants feel they are returning to the early Church before the RC corrupted it. Was the early Church using the exact same New Testament then?

It's as simple as this PDN:
Q.1 When were there books of New Testament decided?
Q.2 Was this decision made by what you see as a corrupt church? If not, who made it and why was it the correct decision?

The books of the New Testament were decided by a gradual process over the first 150 years or more of the Church's history. They were accepted by multitudes of churches that were not corrupt. Eventually this canonisation was officially ratified by a Church Council. That Church Council. in doctrine and practice, had not yet developed into anything that we would recognise as Roman Catholicism.

Again, I would encourage you to read up on Church History. It is a fascinating subject and you will find plenty of material that makes good ammunition for criticising organised religion. You will see that major developments often occurred in quite a democratic and organic fashion, with hierarchies often just endorsing what was already accepted by popular consent.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

The books of the New Testament were decided by a gradual process over the first 150 years or more of the Church's history. They were accepted by multitudes of churches that were not corrupt. Eventually this canonisation was officially ratified by a Church Council. That Church Council. in doctrine and practice, had not yet developed into anything that we would recognise as Roman Catholicism.

Can you provide any evidence of this?

Again, I would encourage you to read up on Church History.

Please just provide evidence. I have quoted the Catholic Encylopedia which supports my view that nobody knows when, where, why the books of the New Testament were decided. What evidence do you have that rebutts that please?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Can you provide any evidence of this?

By the early 200's, Origen may have been using the same 27 books as in the modern New Testament, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena).Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included the four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon

Now, Tim, you are the one making an extraordinary claim that runs contrary to every accepted historian's version of early Christianity. Therefore I am asking you to produce evidence. The above quote from Wikipedia states that the New Testament canon was accepted by almost all Christians by about 150 AD. Can you provide any evidence at all that the Church of 150 AD bore any of the distinguishing marks of Roman Catholicism?

Tim Robbins

If I may refer to a previous post of yours:

The books of the New Testament were decided by a gradual process over the first 150 years or more of the Church's history. They were accepted by multitudes of churches that were not corrupt. Eventually this canonisation was officially ratified by a Church Council. That Church Council. in doctrine and practice, had not yet developed into anything that we would recognise as Roman Catholicism.

Can you elaborate on the ratification of the Church Council please?
Are you referring to Councils of Carthage? If not could you say which council you are referring to?
Thank you.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If I may refer to a previous post of yours:
Can you elaborate on the ratification of the Church Council please?
Are you referring to Councils of Carthage? If not could you say which council you are referring to?
Thank you.

There were two Councils of Carthage, one in 397 and one in 419. I don't know which one you have in mind.

However, I was referring to earlier Councils, namely the Council of Laodicea in 360, the Council of Rome in 382, and the Council of Hippo in 393.

PDN

By the way, Tim, if you are really determined not to read any Church History books then I would recommend a great little non-partisan website called www.religionfacts.com

It basically gives a dispassionate assessment of the beliefs, claims and history of many religious movements. Its section on Roman Catholicism notes that:

religionfacts.com wrote:

The Roman bishop Leo I (440-461) is considered the first pope by historians, as he was the first to claim ultimate authority over all of Christendom. In his writings one can find all the traditional arguments for papal authority, most notably that which asserts Christ had designated Peter and his successors the "rock" on which the church would be built.

So I guess it would be fair, from a non-partisan historical standpoint, to say that 440 marks the beginning of an organisation headquartered in Rome and claiming authority over all other Christians - ie Roman Catholicism.

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

I am sticking to the point. You want to argue that the Canon of Scripture was inherited from the Catholic Church. Therefore it is important to know whether the Church at that time was indeed recognisable as Roman Catholicism or indeed was a pre-existing entity that more resembles modern Protestantism than Roman Catholicism.

My argument is that the Canon of Scripture was developed and recognised by a form of Christianity that was certainly not Roman Catholicism. I believe that there is abundant historical evidence for that position. I would like to hear any evidence you have that contradicts my thesis.


Again, I will make allowances for the fact that Church History is not a subject with which you are familiar. The official adoption of a doctrinal stance by a Church Council (be it the Trinity, the Canon of Scripture etc) are simply a way in which a Church recognises stuff that has already been going on for many years in church congregations. Therefore the date that a Church Council officially adopted 66 books as the Canon of Scripture has no relevance to the fact that the majority of Christians already used such a Canon. Therefore the use of biblical books is very relevant to the issue at hand.

Please let's stick specifically to the Canonisation of the New Testament.
Now you are saying that Protestants feel they are returning to the early Church before the RC corrupted it. Was the early Church using the exact same New Testament then?


The books of the New Testament were decided by a gradual process over the first 150 years or more of the Church's history. They were accepted by multitudes of churches that were not corrupt. Eventually this canonisation was officially ratified by a Church Council. That Church Council. in doctrine and practice, had not yet developed into anything that we would recognise as Roman Catholicism.

Again, I would encourage you to read up on Church History. It is a fascinating subject and you will find plenty of material that makes good ammunition for criticising organised religion. You will see that major developments often occurred in quite a democratic and organic fashion, with hierarchies often just endorsing what was already accepted by popular consent.

PDN is saying it all better than I could.

Let me just give a rough summary of what I'm saying: Protestants have the same NT as Catholics because both accept it as the Scripture handed on from the apostles.

The formal recognition of it by the Council hundreds of years later only clarified the issue in a time when heresy abounded. Just as with other big issues, like the Trinity, the formal statements by gathered churches were a defensive response - not a construction of new ideas.

The other crucial point is that the Roman Catholic Church was even then only in the embryo stage, as the Christian Church experienced more and more corruption in doctrine and practice. Churches of more or less authentic Christians continued throughout the Roman Catholic era, enduring persecution and slander from its powerful imitator.

And of course some true Christians continued to exist within the Roman Catholic system.

The Reformation signalled not the beginning of non-RC Christianity, but its ability to exist openly without being slaughtered by Crusades. To the remnant of the underground Church was then added the massive growth of Protestant (mostly ex-RC) believers.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

There were two Councils of Carthage, one in 397 and one in 419. I don't know which one you have in mind.

However, I was referring to earlier Councils, namely the Council of Laodicea in 360, the Council of Rome in 382, and the Council of Hippo in 393.

1. Council of Laodicea 360: The Canon of the New Testament as it is today was not agreed at this. Revelations was left out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea

2. Council of Rome in 382: This was head by Pope Damasus I. This was 2 years after 380, when "Emperor Theodosius I enacted a law establishing Catholic Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire and ordering others to be called heretics."
Source -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_catholic#Church_History

You have chosen to take an interpretation of history when the Roman Catholic Church begins at 440, Leo I. Perhaps you are doing that because it suits your argument. But either way, I am not sure Roman Catholics would agree with that. Perhaps Noel or Michael might like to comment.

Michael G

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You have chosen to take an interpretation of history when the Roman Catholic Church begins at 440, Leo I. Perhaps you are doing that because it suits your argument. But either way, I am not sure Roman Catholics would agree with that. Perhaps Noel or Michael might like to comment.

Thanks Tim. Noel will choose for himself but I wouldn't know where to start. PDN quotes the website he recommends as saying that "The Roman bishop Leo I (440-461) is considered the first pope by historians, as he was the first to claim ultimate authority over all of Christendom." What historians? Perhaps the first surviving original written record dates from then (I don't know), but Catholic belief is based on Matthew 16:18 and on Tradition.