--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we now call popes were originally bishops of Rome (one bishop among brother bishops from other cities). Then they became popes, with power over the entire Church. Then they became so powerful that they were able to depose kings and emperors. They became so powerful that they were able to force kings to use their secular might to enforce the Inquisition, which was conducted by Catholic priests and monks. In 1870, the Pope was declared to be infallible. The process of increasing papal power was influenced by forged documents which changed people’s perception of the history of the papacy and of the Church.

I’m just going to briefly summarize some information about these forgeries. At the end of this paper is a link to an on-line article which gives detailed historical information.

One of the most famous forgeries is the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals,” which were written around 845 A.D. (They are also known as the “False Decretals”.) They consist of 115 documents which were supposedly written by early popes. [Note 1]

The “Catholic Encyclopedia” admits that these are forgeries. It says that the purpose of these forged documents was to enable the Church to be independent of secular power, and to prevent the laity from ruling the Church. [Note 2 gives the address of an on-line article.] In other words, their purpose was to increase the power of the Pope and the Catholic Church.

In addition to documents which were total forgeries, genuine documents were altered. One hundred twenty-five genuine documents had forged material added to them, which increased the power of the Pope. Many early documents were changed to say the opposite of what they had originally said. [Note 3]

One of the forgeries is a letter which was falsely attributed to Saint Ambrose. It said that if a person does not agree with the Holy See, then he or she is a heretic. [Note 4] This is an example of how papal power was promoted by fraudulently claiming the authority of highly respected Early Fathers.

Another famous forgery from the ninth century was “The Donation of Constantine”. It claimed that Emperor Constantine gave the western provinces of the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome. The Pope used it to claim authority in secular matters. [Note 5]

When Greek Christians tried to discuss issues with the Church in Rome, the popes often used forged documents to back their claims. This happened so frequently that for 700 years the Greeks referred to Rome as “the home of forgeries”. [Note 6]

For three hundred years, the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” and other forgeries were used by Roman Popes to claim authority over the Church in the East. The Patriarch of Constantinople rejected these false claims of primacy. This resulted in the separation of the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church. [Note 7 gives addresses of on-line articles.]

In the middle of the twelfth century, a monk named Gratian wrote the “Decretum,” which became the basis for Canon Law (the legal system for running the Roman Catholic Church). It contained numerous quotations from forged documents. Gratian drew many of his conclusions from those quotations. Gratian quoted 324 passages which were supposedly written by popes of the first four centuries. Of those passages, only eleven are genuine. The other 313 quotations are forgeries. [Note 8]

In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas wrote the “Summa Theologica” and numerous other works. His writings are the foundation for scholastic theology. Aquinas used Gratian’s “Decretum” for quotations from church fathers and early popes. [Note 9] Aquinas also used forged documents which he thought were genuine. [Note 10]

The importance of Thomas Aquinas’ theology can be seen in the encyclical of Pope Pius X on the priesthood. In 1906, Pius said that in their study of philosophy, theology, and Scripture, men studying for the priesthood should follow the directions given by the popes and the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. [This papal encyclical is available on-line. Note 11 gives addresses.]

William Webster is the author of “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History”. (I recommend this book.) His web site has an article entitled “Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy”. The article gives detailed information about the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” and other forged documents, showing their influence on the papacy and on the Catholic Church. Four quotations from his article are below. (They are used by permission.)

“In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of men’s perceptions of the history of that Constitution. As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, it would serve as a buffer against any unlawful ambitions. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. This forgery is known as the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals,” written around 845 A.D. The “Decretals” are a complete fabrication of Church history. They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils.”

“The historical facts reveal that the papacy was never a reality as far as the universal Church is concerned. There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries, especially those of “Pseudo-Isidore”. One such historian is Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic.” [Webster quotes extensitely from Dollinger.]

“In addition to the “Pseudo Isidorian Decretals” there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled ‘Against the Errors of the Greeks’. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers…. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries.”

“The authority claims of Roman Catholicism ultimately devolve upon the institution of the papacy. The papacy is the center and source from which all authority flows for Roman Catholicism. Rome has long claimed that this institution was established by Christ and has been in force in the Church from the very beginning. But the historical record gives a very different picture. This institution was promoted primarily through the falsification of historical fact through the extensive use of forgeries as Thomas Aquinas’ apologetic for the papacy demonstrates. Forgery is its foundation.”

I strongly encourage you to read William Webster’s article. It has an abundance of valuable historical information. The address of the article is:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I encourage you to link to this article and to put it on your own web site. You have my permission to copy this entire article or portions of it, and to quote from it. You have my permission to incorporate this entire article or portions of it into publications of your own, including translating it into other languages. You have my permission to distribute copies of this article, including selling it for profit. I do not want any royalties or financial remuneration of any kind. Please give this information to anybody who might be interested in it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] William Webster, “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History” (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pages 62-63. Webster is a former Catholic.

Peter de Rosa, “Vicars of Christ” (Dublin, Ireland: Poolbeg Press, 1988, 2000), pages 58-61, 174, 208. De Rosa is a Catholic, and a former Catholic priest. He was able to do historical research in the Vatican Archives.

Paul Johnson, “A History of Christianity” (New York: A Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, 1976, 1995), page 195. Johnson is a Catholic and a prominent historian.

[2] “Benedict Levita” in the “Catholic Encyclopedia”. [Benedict Levita is the pseudonym of the author of the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals”.]

[7] Orthodox Christian Information Center, “The False Decretals of Isidore”. An excerpt from “The Papacy” by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church.

“The Great Schism of 1054”. This is a sermon given at the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist,in Washington, D.C.

[10] William Webster, “Forgeries and the papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy”. This gives detailed accounts of Aquinas’ use of forged documents which he wrongly believed to be genuine.

[11] Pius X, “Pieni l’animo” (“On the Clergy in Italy”), July 28, 1906. (See paragraph 6.)

Not so, HarleyD! I'll say a little more on this (sic: heretic) tomorrow after I process my tomatoes & green beans --- yum --

Now you're trying to entice me to become a Catholic with food. I remember Adam being snookered by the same device. :O)

According to the dictionary, heretic is defined as:

2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : nonconformist

If Galileo was declared a heretic by the Church for supporting Copernican for saying the earth revolves around the sun and I am not branded a heretic for saying I disagree with many of the later Church's teachings, then I must have missed something.

Basically, any erroneous teaching is a heresy; but to be a heretic you'd have to be someone who willingly embraces what they know to be contrary to revealed truth. ...This is the principle of invincible ignorance, which Catholic theology has always recognized as excusing one before God.

Ah, yes but getting back to Galileo, he embraced what he knew to be true. So by your definition the Church was wrong to brand Galileo as a heretic.

And then there is always the Council of Trent:

CANON IV. If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed"!

I cannot possibly agree with this statement. I believe it is not only wrong but is against the teaching of the early church which stated at the Council of Orange:

If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly ... belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8)....]

As you can see, these two statements from the Council of Trent and the Council of Orange are in total conflict. One can only accept one of these statement while being cursed by the other. That is the heretic dilemma much to the consternation of Galileo.

Thanks for the ping to roamer’s post. He said something QUITE profound, in my opinion, something so profound I had to comment, and indeed applaud. It’s rare we reach this level of discussion here. I feel I must at least try to capitalize on this moment, fleeting as it may be.

He said, “If one is to dispute the concept of sola-scriptura, and that the inerrant Word is the sole and final authoritative proof, then one must no doubt meet that burden with a proof that is equally inerrant and utterly bullet-proof. The evidences as they are before me do not meet that standard in the least.”

Which in of itself is a perfectly FINE quality to demand. We SHOULD demand such a high level of proof. Such a high level of veracity. We should, because it’s only truly human to demand such. The “problem” though is two fold:

What consititues “proof” and how could that be “equally inerrant” as Scripture, to the Protestant? (or to anyone?)

This is the Catholic claim: the “proof” of the Church’s claims ultimately don’t rest on “history” alone or “Scripture alone” or “Tradition alone” or even the “Magisterium alone”. It RESTS, in each and every authentically human being’s EXPERIENCE.

It’s truly the challenge Jesus gave to his first disciples centuries ago, “Come, follow me”, “come and SEE”. You have to see for YOURSELF, to get the “proof”, ultimate, OBJECTIVE proof (in every sense of the word “objective”) that the Church is as she claims.

That’s the reason for the Incarnation. THAT’S why God chose to become Man. He could have just snapped his fingers and “saved” everyone. Or “damned” everyone. Or poofed the Universe out of existence and started over. Or ........anything......... But He CHOSE to come as a MAN, to relate to us on OUR level, and so, this is the reason for the Church.

This is why the Church exists, to continue to offer to the world Christ, on Earth, CHRIST, as a physical (albeit mystical) Body, His CHURCH. God doesn’t change. He hasn’t changed His PLan for Man’s Salvation from the very MOMENT Adam fell. He has constantly and consistently chosen to work IN the world (not OF the world but IN it) to reach DOWN to Man, to work with Man on Man’s level, even though He never “HAD” to.

He chose to flood the world, and saving a man (Noah) from it, instead of snappng the world out of existence!

He chose to lead his people out of Egypt, THROUGH a desert, instead of snapping his fingers and transporting them to the Promised Land.

He chose to use a boy to slay a giant, when he could have done so Himself, and saved David the hardship.

He, AGAIN, chose to BECOME Man so that Man could RELATE to Him, without loosing their original humanity, but actually by being FULLY human.

I’ve said before and I’ll say again: these “debates” only get one so far. You’ll never find the “proof” of Catholicism here, not ultimately, not completely. That complete proof rests in your own experience, your experience founded in and guided by an objective , unbiased heart.

You (the reader) shouldn’t even take MY word alone for this, again you need to see for yourself, be changed by the Holy Spirit YOURSELF, to be fully convinced.

I’ve also said before and I’ll close with this: If everyone would just come to the Church without their preconceptions, without their already preformed judgements, their malformed experiences (malformed via misinformation from other people with agendas, from personal experiences with evil people in the Church), just come with an OPEN heart (”heart” in the Biblical sense which includes the mind and spirit), you WILL come to a knowledge that the Church’s claims are true.

It’s truly the most authentic form of “independence”. It’s independence, it’s FREEDOM, from EVERYTHING *OF* this world, every influence, every prejudgement, every bias, everything. It’s the most authentic “personal relationship with Jesus”.

You will come to this knowledge not because of what the priest says, or the Pope, or any apologetic work or what your friends say (or don’t say) or what ANYONE ELSE does or says, but you will because of your OWN EXPERIENCE.

Which is truly the most objective evidence of all. The alternative is to be a slave to someone, or something, either someone else’s opinion of the Church, or someone else’s reading of the Bible, or someone else’s opinion about the priesthood and Tradition, or be a slave to your own emotions, emotions based on horrible experiences from people in the Church, and not on objective reality. Not obeying objective reality, leads one away from the Church; it is that simple.

Because ultimately, this is what resistance to the Church is based upon, and this fact is on constant display in these fora. EVERYONE who denies the Church eventually uses the “evidence” of ANOTHER PERSON’S opinion, about all (or any) of the above, to “justify” their own belief about the Church. (Sadly some Catholics seem to do the same to justify their “faith” too, but this doesn’t detract from my point, in fact my pointing this out too should bolster it)

NO, “proof” is not ultimately found in these “debates”. It’s found in your own experience with the Lord in the Church.

Why has no Protestant/anti-Catholic here ever taken me up on this challenge? Why haven’t you at least TRIED to see if I’m right (or wrong)? How do I know this is the case? Do I read minds? No, I don’t; I only go on the fact no one has ever said to me, “47, I tried what you said,I HONESTLY TRIED to go to Mass, without any preconceptions, without any biases against the Church, no matter how “well informed” or “educated”, but it didn’t work for me. Despite my child like heart, I didn’t find God there”. No one has ever said that in the 10 years I’ve been here, that’s how I know.

But go ahead, have this post deleted for “mind reading” if you want; and we will remain in the MORASS of these “debates” even longer, instead of making real, HUMAN progress.

As I see it, these two statements are interconnected. Both are referring to the individuals personal EXPERIENCE. The problem I have with it is that man and man's experience can NEVER be objective. In order to be objective, one needs to be able to stand outside the situation and look in, not having an vested interest in the situation.

When it affects us personally, it automatically precludes objectivity.

Another issue I have is that I do not believe that a completely objective viewpoint will by default lead to Catholicism.

It is not Catholicism which saves, it is Jesus.

One must come to HIM, the one who died for him for the forgiveness of sins, the one whom our offenses are against, the only one who can forgive the offenses we committed against Him.

Now, some may argue that the best way to come to Him is through the Catholic church, but Jesus Himself warns against looking for eternal life in anything but Himself.

John 5:37-40 And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.

Scripture shows us our need for Christ, it leads us to Him, it helps us identify Him, it shows us how to obtain forgiveness from Him, and it shows us how to grow in Him.

Paul told us that the Law was given to lead us to Christ.(Galatians 2)

On the contrary, it is through Jesus Christ. If it were through the church, then there would have been no need for Jesus to come in the flesh to fully identify with us. So you did just contradict yourself there with your previous statements explaining why Christ came.

Again I have to disagree because our experience is subjective, and the only truly objective source is the word of God.

Putting the test of truth on subjective experience is no different than what the Mormon's do with their test of the *burning in the bosom* to verify or validate their theology. An objective source is needed, something that is true and inerrant and dependable beyond any chance of being invalidated, a rock as it were.

That would be the Word, the Word that became flesh. The word that was also transcribed so that we could know the word Incarnate.

If one truly believes that Scripture was Holy Spirit inspired, God breathed, then there is no other source to go to because NOTHING else can compare to the dependability of *God said....*

Here's how I make the tomatoes and green beans. I feel like a genius because it is delicious (!), it uses plentiful stuff from my garden like "post-mature" fat lumpy green beans that are on the tough side plus shellies, and plump overripe tomatoes which are a metaphor for my life, and I developed the recipe partly (largely?) from being lazy.

Quasi-GREEK GREEN BEANS AND TOMATOES

3/4 cup olive oil
2 cups chopped onions
2 cloves garlic, minced
4 cups green beans, trimmed
3 large tomatoes, peeled and diced
2 teaspoons sugar
1 – 2 chicken bouillon cubes
Oregano, basil, thyme , parsley, crushed red pepper flakes, liberally
"in the true sense of the word"
Parmesan, Feta Cheese

The night before: trim beans and put in pressure cooker, bring just up to the first wobble, then turn off. Leave to cook off the heat overnight. Also: chop onions and put in crockpot with olive oil, garlic and spices, on low overnight. (Not fresh herbs, they are added toward the end.)

Next day: Put tomatoes and onion spice mixture together in a big pot and cook until tomatoes are cooked down and there’s a nice broth. Add bouillon cubes, fresh thyme & basil, parmesan to taste. Serve topped with feta.

You will feel a strange desire to cross yourself right-to-left, bow deeply from the waist 3 times, and become Orthodox.

In the future I will try to tweak this into being Sicilian, so you can be a proper Catholic and cross yourself t'other way. That's because the dear Orthodox do it their way, but the Catholics do it God's way. :o} . :o}

And now for the Sicilian joke:

Young Mario lived in Sicily and bought a donkey from a farmer for $100.

The farmer agreed to deliver the donkey the next day. The next day he drove up saying, 'Sorry son, but I have some bad news, the donkey died.'

Mario replied,’ Well, then just give me my money back.'

The farmer said, 'Can't do that. I went and spent it already.'

Mario said, 'Ok, then, just bring me the dead donkey.'

The farmer asked, 'what ya gonna do with a dead donkey?

Mario said, 'I'm going to raffle him off.'

The farmer said, you can't raffle off a dead donkey!'

Mario said, 'Sure I can, I just won't tell anybody he's dead.'

A month later, the farmer met up with Mario and asked, 'What happened with that dead donkey?'

Mario said, 'I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at $2 each and I made a profit of $898.'

The farmer said, 'Didn't anyone complain?'

Mario said, 'Just the guy who won, so I gave him his $2 back.'

Mario now works for the government.

OK, let me be the first.

I don't find God by going somewhere.

As you may or may not know, I was raised Catholic but left the Catholic church during my teen years. When I hit rock bottom some years later (and not the living on the streets, drug dealing kind of rock bottom, but definitely the end of myself) I started talking to God. Now, it was certainly not the kind of praying that I had been brought up doing, but just talking to Him as I would talk to another person. I did not at that time start going back to church, that came later.

But one day, when I just didn't know what else to do, I prayed and said to God "God, if you can straighten out this mess of a life of mine, you can have it. I'll do anything you want me to. I'll even become a missionary and go to Africa (The absolute most desperate thing I could think of), because I'd rather be happy doing what You want me to do than keep on going like I am."

Now, this was 35+ years ago and I still remember it like yesterday. And nothing immediately happened. No lightning bolts or anything, but things began to change. *I* began to change. I noticed a difference in my interests. I was no longer interested in going to bars with my friends, for example. Not cause I felt like I had to, but I it just didn't appeal to me any more.

My work situation changed and I ended up working with a very vocal Baptist who shared Christ with everyone he met. And while I had never heard anything like what he told me, I somehow *KNEW* that what he was telling me was true. (Looking back I can now see that as the Conviction of the Holy Spirit)

Finally he explained what *accepting Christ* was about, asking Him to come and live in your heart as an act of your will, that He wouldn't force His way in, and when I heard that I thought "THAT'S IT!!!!! That's what I want!"

Standing there, I prayed and said to Jesus, *I don't know what it means to *ask you into my heart as an act of my will, but I will You in.*

Not exactly your typical *sinner's prayer* but Christ came in that day and THAT change was dramatic and instantaneous.

I immediately thought, *I need to start going to church*, *I need to start giving*, *I need to buy a Bible*. Nobody told me I "had" to do those things, they just happened.

So I started going to church where I was raised. I went BACK to the Catholic church. And I went for months and the longer I went, and the more I read the Bible, the more dissatisfied I became with the Catholic church and the more discrepancy I found between Scripture and the teachings of the Bible.

After a while, another co-worker invited me to his Evangelical church and I went and was amazed at the difference I saw there, and vacillated between the two for a couple months and then finally made the break with the Catholic church.

And you know what? I still have not found a church which has doctrine with which I agree 100%, but that is not important, because church is not the bedrock of my relationship with Christ.

It's a great place to worship, hear good preaching and teaching, and enjoy the company of other believers for encouragement, but the foundation of my faith is Jesus, what I can learn about Him through Bible reading and study, and most importantly, prayer, simply spending time talking with Him.

Church plays a role in my life, but it is secondary at best. And it's going to do no good if I don't nourish that relationship MYSELF.

It would be no different than if I tried to survive by eating once a week. I need to do it every day, several times a day.

Christ in me, the hope of Glory. My body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. I don't need to go somewhere to find God or meet Him. I can do it as I'm going for a walk, driving the car, waiting in the doctor's office, I can do it any time in the sanctuary of my heart and mind.

*Tradition* is too inherently unreliable, IMO, no matter what claims of infallibility someone makes about themselves or their organization. I do not trust word of mouth nor men who depend on it. There's simply no way of verifying that it has been passed on faithfully. At least with Scripture, there is a long history and the documents are old and much of them has been verified with findings like the Dead Sea Scrolls, which attest to the accuracy with which they have been copied. Once anyone crosses the line into speculations about things not mentioned in Scripture and starts treating them as facts, that just crosses a line I am not comfortable crossing.

I agree with your statements. Take this subject which we have been discussing as well as a few other threads, which always seem to venture into the same topics when Catholicism is placed against Protestantism. It doesn't matter that certain dogmas, which the Catholic Church have only recently been declared (within the last hundred years), were arguably NOT doctrines that the early church held to (i.e., Immaculate Conception; Assumption). It really doesn't matter that these may have been ideas some people liked to believe and talk about, the truth is that they were NOT doctrines declared as necessary for the faithful to obey and believe and they were NOT doctrines that Scripture teaches.

The issue is that the Catholic Church has proclaimed that THEY are empowered to make doctrine out of whatever they choose and mandate belief in them to all Christians. This exact same issue is what caused the schism between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox contend that the Catholic Church did not stick to the ancient doctrines - what was always and everywhere believed. It's no wonder that this was the cause of a further split during the Reformation between Roman Catholicism and what is now called Protestantism.

So, who is the one that is "right" and who is "wrong" and who has the authority to decide? Shouldn't it be logical that Scripture, as the ONLY divinely-inspired revelation we have been given by God and which He has preserved all these centuries BE that authority? The Apostles and disciples, under inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit wrote as he carried them along and we have the SAME revealed and transcendent truth as those first Christians had. It isn't logical that God would have omitted anything that was necessary for our salvation and rule of faith.

So, I am throwing my lot also in with Scripture and trust that the Holy Spirit, through God's word, will lead us into all truth. It is HIS holy promise to His own.

I have to disagree with the comparison. It seems to me the anology would work just the opposite of what you describe. The “stretchtext” would lead from anyone writing about scripture back to the original in scripture. It would ultimately lead back to the original text as written by the apostles. That is after all what Sola Scripture actually means. It was a good analogy but just needs turned around!

I agree with your point CB. If we're using the "Stretch Text" concept, then it only verifiably works when the originator (the Holy Spirit) expounds further on a given topic. We see that frequently throughout Scripture such as when early Old Testament prophecies, temple rituals and objects used during them, liturgies of the various feasts and their distinct objects point to a further revelation of their meaning when the incarnation happened and the various things happened in the life of Jesus. It is more similiar, really, to the idea of a hypertext link where other verses are cross referenced. In reality, Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, Paul, Peter, et al, weren't really the authors of sacred Scripture. Not anymore than Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, et al, were the authors of the Old Testament books. We acknowledge them as the writers but the words did not come from their own imaginations. Their "expounding" on the texts in their own words, mixing in their opinions and thoughts, even then, are not as reliable as the actual God-breathed Holy Scripture. When Paul wrote what Christ revealed to him and commanded he write down to get out the teaching to all the churches, he certainly followed up on that by his continued teachings of the same truths as well as those people he discipled to carry on the succession of the truth. Neither Paul nor his hand-picked successors had carte blanche authority to go beyond what was written.

So, I agree a little with Mrs. Don-O with the concept of the Scriptures having a certain intrinsic Stretch Text but only as OTHER scripture further expounds on a topic. This, I believe, is why certain works that claimed to be writings of the Apostles never made it to the level of recognized Holy Scripture. I think even way back then God gave the believers the discernment they needed to tell the difference. It is also why we today should not place importance on works that claim to be authentic yet do not agree with Holy Scripture. The canon (the rule of faith) is closed and our Heavenly Father left out nothing pertaining to our faith and godliness. We have the duty to study God's word and be able to give an answer to everyone that asks us of the reason for the hope that is within us, with gentleness and respect.

He hasn’t changed this Plan. So the only way we will ever really “find” God is by acknowledging that God’s PLan for all of us is to be as fully HUMAN as Adam was, as His Son was and IS, and that’s the only way anyone will ever be convinced, is to embrace the one way He has chosen, yet AGAIN, JUST like those examples above, to relate to us and reach DOWN to us on our, pitiful level: through The Church. I’ve said before and I’ll say again: these “debates” only get one so far. You’ll never find the “proof” of Catholicism here, not ultimately, not completely. That complete proof rests in your own experience, your experience founded in and guided by an objective , unbiased heart.

You left out an extremely important point...how is the Catholic Church proved to be THE church? Because they say they are? No, there MUST be something, some way that "objective" people can know that the teachings the Roman Catholic Church espouses actually ARE the truth. That would be something ABOVE the Catholic Church that points "objective" people to it. All you got is your own say so. Catholicism attempts to use Holy Scripture to assert her authority but then crashes when she asserts she is ABOVE Scripture by claiming to be its writer, compiler, preserver and distributor. Quite a circular argument.

Of course you won't take the word of those who DID come from a Roman Catholic Church upbringing and left it, will you? What kind of biases or prejudices draw someone OUT of the Catholic Church when it is all they have ever known? You are convinced that anyone who is truly open and objective with a "child like" heart won't be able to resist being convinced the Catholic Church IS the real deal? Well, there are many of us who really DID leave for a more genuine and Biblical Christianity. When I read for myself the gospel in Scripture (i.e., John 10:27-30), I recognized immediately that what I knew deep in my heart had been missing in the Catholic Church's gospel was finally found. It was as simple as that! I realized that the "church" is the people - not a monolithic, monarchical organization - the people of God who belong to Him, who hear His voice and who know Him and follow Him. He knows them and saves them and they shall never perish nor be snatched from His hands. These are the people of God who He uses to preach the truth of the gospel of the grace of God and the Holy Spirit convicts those hearts who diligently seek to know Him. THAT is the Jesus I know and follow and I did not find Him in the Catholic Church. That is my genuine, heart-felt, objective experience. Will you tell me I am wrong?

There was no Jewish canon in the time of Jesus. The Sadducees rejected all but the Pentateuch.

Not true! Don't the Pharisees have any say in the matter? Paul said to the Jews belonged the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:2). Jesus often referred to Moses and the Prophets as speaking of Him. He used these Scriptures, referring to them as "it is written" dozens of times in His refutation against the religious leaders and even Satan (during the temptation). In fact:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/voorwinde1.html

Jesus gave what many theologians consider to be a validation of the books that make up what we know as the Old Testament when he said, Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:34,35) This a speaking of the first and last chronological books that make up the sacred Scriptures. Also, from http://www.the-highway.com/ntcanon_Warfield.html, we learn:

But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the apostles (by Christ’s own appointment the authoritative founders of the church) imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves, the apostles, who had been “made sufficient as ministers of a new covenant “; for (as one of themselves argued) “if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory.” Accordingly not only was the gospel they delivered, in their own estimation, itself a divine revelation, but it was also preached “in the Holy Ghost” (I Pet. i. 12); not merely the matter of it, but the very words in which it was clothed were “of the Holy Spirit” (I Cor. ii. 13). Their own commands were, therefore, of divine authority (I Thess. iv. 2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (II Thess. ii. 15). “If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle,” says Paul to one church (II Thess. iii. 14), “note that man, that ye have no company with him.” To another he makes it the test of a Spirit-led man to recognize that what he was writing to them was “the commandments of the Lord” (I Cor. xiv. 37). Inevitably, such writings, making so awful a claim on their acceptance, were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old “Bible “; placed alongside of its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship — a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (I Thess. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Rev. 1. 3). In the apprehension, therefore, of the earliest churches, the “Scriptures” were not a closed but an increasing “canon.” Such they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should remain among the churches “men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

We say that this immediate placing of the new books — given the church under the seal of apostolic authority — among the Scriptures already established as such, was inevitable. It is also historically evinced from the very beginning. Thus the apostle Peter, writing in A.D. 68, speaks of Paul’s numerous letters not in contrast with the Scriptures, but as among the Scriptures and in contrast with “the other Scriptures” (II Pet. iii. 16) — that is, of course, those of the Old Testament. In like manner the apostle Paul combines, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, the book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke under the common head of “Scripture” (I Tim. v. 18): “For the Scripture saith, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn’ [Deut. xxv. 4]; and, ‘The laborer is worthy of his hire’” (Luke x. 7). The line of such quotations is never broken in Christian literature. Polycarp (c. 12) in A.D. 115 unites the Psalms and Ephesians in exactly similar manner: “In the sacred books, . . . as it is said in these Scriptures, ‘Be ye angry and sin not,’ and ‘Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.’” So, a few years later, the so-called second letter of Clement, after quoting Isaiah, adds (ii. 4): “And another Scripture, however, says, ‘I came not to call the righteous, but sinners’” — quoting from Matthew, a book which Barnabas (circa 97-106 A.D.) had already adduced as Scripture. After this such quotations are common.

What needs emphasis at present about these facts is that they obviously are not evidences of a gradually-heightening estimate of the New Testament books, originally received on a lower level and just beginning to be tentatively accounted Scripture; they are conclusive evidences rather of the estimation of the New Testament books from the very beginning as Scripture, and of their attachment as Scripture to the other Scriptures already in hand. The early Christians did not, then, first form a rival “canon” of “new books” which came only gradually to be accounted as of equal divinity and authority with the “old books”; they received new book after new book from the apostolical circle, as equally” Scripture “ with the old books, and added them one by one to the collection of old books as additional Scriptures, until at length the new books thus added were numerous enough to be looked upon as another section of the Scriptures.

The earliest name given to this new section of Scripture was framed on the model of the name by which what we know as the Old Testament was then known. Just as it was called “The Law and the Prophets and the Psalms” (or “the Hagiographa”), or more briefly “The Law and the Prophets,” or even more briefly still “The Law”; so the enlarged Bible was called “The Law and the Prophets, with the Gospels and the Apostles” (so Clement of Alexandria, “Strom.” vi. 11, 88; Tertullian, “De Præs. Hær.” 36), or most briefly “The Law and the Gospel” (so Claudius Apolinaris, Irenæus); while the new books apart were called “The Gospel and the Apostles,” or most briefly of all” The Gospel.” This earliest name for the new Bible, with all that it involves as to its relation to the old and briefer Bible, is traceable as far back as Ignatius (A.D. 115), who makes use of it repeatedly (e.g., “ad Philad.” 5; “ad Smyrn.” 7). In one passage he gives us a hint of the controversies which the enlarged Bible of the Christians aroused among the Judaizers (“ad Philad.” 6). “When I heard some saying,” he writes, “‘Unless I find it in the Old [Books] I will not believe the Gospel,’ on my saying, ‘It is written,’ they answered, ‘That is the question.’ To me, however, Jesus Christ is the Old [Books]; his cross and death and resurrection, and the faith which is by him, the undefiled Old [Books] — by which I wish, by your prayers, to be justified. The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest better,” etc. Here Ignatius appeals to the “Gospel” as Scripture, and the Judaizers object, receiving from him the answer in effect which Augustine afterward formulated in the well-known saying that the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is first made clear in the New. What we need now to observe, however, is that to Ignatius the New Testament was not a different book from the Old Testament, but part of the one body of Scripture with it; an accretion, so to speak, which had grown upon it.

I hope you will take a look at the two links I gave because they do explain quite well how the Bible (Old and New Testaments) we now know came to be and how it did not take hundreds of years for their divine origin to be accepted and believed. It's quite remarkable.

This is why the Church exists, to continue to offer to the world Christ, on Earth, CHRIST, as a physical (albeit mystical) Body, His CHURCH

That is really a good sales pitch you got goin' there...However, it's full of holes...

Jesus Christ is NOT on Earth...He is in heaven...Jesus is the Head, not the Body...We Christians are the Body...And it is not a physical Body...It's a spiritual Body...

Now if we dump all of that biblical and spiritual knowledge we have and come to your religion with an empty head as you suggest, maybe you can brainwash some of us...

Christians do not look for an 'experience'...And while the experience in one of your religious abodes IS an experience, what with the religious looking priests, the murals, stained glass, gold dishes, richly embroidered curtains, the rituals, the incense; that is NOT what Jesus called sinners to experience...

And what independence??? Your religion is a house of bondage...You guys don't even know if you'll end up in heaven, until you get to the White Throne Judgment which is a place where no Christian will ever set foot...

A personal relationship with Jesus??? You guys aren't allowed to have a personal relationship with Jesus...Eating a wafer is not a personal relationship with Jesus...

We Christians have a personal relationship with Jesus thru the Holy Spirit who indwells each and every Christian...The Holy Spirit lives inside of us, 24/7, without eating a wafer...

You guys are not allowed that 'experience', the real experience..Only your clergy are allowed (according to your religion) to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit...

We Christians know we are saved...Our home in heaven is secured...What person in his right mind would trade any of that for what you (don't) offer???

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.