Catholic Church Accused!
Catholic Church Accused?
An amateur ‘criminologist’ investigates!
The allegation is that the ‘Early Church’ (the Catholic Church) has edited, materially altered, or corrupted the ‘Scriptures’ (The Bible). This allegation has roots dating back centuries. In recent times, most notably since the publication of the book, ‘The Da Vinci Code’, this allegation has regained popularity, and is a continuing topic on ‘blogs’.
The charge is a very serious one. The merits of which will be explored here to some extent.
Considering the Catholic Church has vehemently denied such a ‘crime’ occurred it would be ‘unreasonable’ to expect an unbiased investigation by the Catholic Church of the Catholic Church. One would expect the same result if an accused murderer were to investigate the murder one was charged with. No one would expect an unbiased investigation, nor accept its results unless it proved its own guilt.
Who is this author to investigate such an allegation? What makes such an individual even close to impartial? Previous articles here assess the ‘characteristics’ of some anti-Catholic Church leanings.
Specifically, it is the stated position of the Catholic Church that this author is execrated by the Catholic Church, as a heretic and schismatic, and as such under a sentence of latae sententiae excommunication. According to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, this author is not capable of attaining ‘salvation’. [In all honesty, it has been alluded to recently those charges may be either incomplete or erroneous.]
Any evidence condemning the Catholic Church, by extension would denigrate the Catholic Church’s assessment of the condition pronounced by the Catholic Church.
One could assume that by exonerating the Catholic Church, this author might have such sentences lifted. No such precedence exists in the history of the Catholic Church that a branded, excommunicated heretic has ‘won’ clemency based on such an action.
In other words, the author gains nothing from the Catholic Church by either condemning or exonerating the Catholic Church.
Let us get to the significant part: An investigation of a crime requires four elements.
1. That a crime occurred or there is an allegation that a crime occurred.
+ Opportunity, Means, and Motive.
2. It requires that the accused had the opportunity (time) to have committed the crime.
3. It requires the accused had the means (ability) to have committed the crime.
4. It requires the accused had a motive (reason) to have committed the crime.°
Let us look at these four elements in the context of this case:
1. The Crime: It is alleged that the Catholic Church edited, changed, omitted, or otherwise materially altered the ‘Bible’ in such a manner that it is NOT the True, Inspired, Authoritative Word of God.
2. Opportunity: Did the Catholic Church have the time required commit the crime? There is no doubt that the Catholic Church had the requisite time to alter the Bible in some way. The first Latin version of the Bible was the Vulgate. It was ‘published¹’ somewhere around 400 A.D. It was authorized, financed, and overseen by the Catholic Church. Jerome of Jerusalem (St. Jerome) is credited with oversight, compilation (of ancient texts and manuscripts) and translation. The Vulgate WAS the standard Bible in the Catholic Church. Additionally, for most of that period, Latin literacy was confined to Catholic clergy and the highest levels of European Nobility. The opportunity existed for about 1000 years for the Catholic Church to alter the Bible.
--conclusion: The Catholic Church had Opportunity.
3. Means: Did the Catholic Church have the ability to alter the Bible? The Vulgate was not only the Bible of the Catholic Church; it was not available to the general populace. Some of Martin Luther’s ‘95 Theses’ (the beginning of the Protestant Reformation) dealt with that fact specifically. Martin Luther argued that the Bible should be made available to the public at large. Literacy and control of the Vulgate was the domain of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church made all copies of the Vulgate, by hand, in monasteries under very strict supervision. Since the Catholic Church made the copies, any alterations would have been directly under their control, without any ‘outside’ knowledge² or interference.
--conclusion: The Catholic Church had the Means.
4. Motive: Why would the Catholic Church materially alter the text of the Bible? The simple (Achem’s Razor) answer is that IF at any time as the Catholic Church grew in size and influence, any of the Catholic Church’s doctrines were NOT Biblical, then the Bible must be altered to conform to the Doctrine of the Catholic Church. The entire Protestant Reformation is predicated on the premise that there are in fact discrepancies between the Bible and the doctrines of the Catholic Church. The existing schism between ‘Protestant Christianity’ and the Catholic Church stands on the premise that there still exist discrepancies between the Bible and doctrines within the Catholic Church.
--conclusion: The Catholic Church had Motive.
---
REVIEWING:
The Catholic Church had Opportunity.
The Catholic Church had Means.
The Catholic Church had Motive.
--BUT--
Is there evidence that the alleged crime actually took place?
The prima facie evidence is that the alleged crime did not take place. Simply, if the Catholic Church altered the Bible, there would not have been a Protestant Reformation.
However, is prima facie evidence enough to vindicate the Catholic Church? Let us not make that assumption. So we have to ‘look’ at evidence in a light that either dismisses the prima facie evidence and convicts the Catholic Church OR supports the prima facie evidence, and vindicates the Church.
Let us ‘look’ at one single piece of evidence: This single piece of evidence is SO COMPELLING as to make additional evidence, merely corroboration.
This evidence is The cornerstone of the Catholic Church…The entire doctrine of the Catholic Church is ‘built’ on one sentence in the Bible. Without this sentence All of the ‘authority’ of the Catholic Church crumbles. This sentence is arguably the most ‘contested’ verse in the entire Bible, and has been for the last 500 years.
It is present here in ‘Parallel Versions’. There is the ‘New American Bible’ (the NAB is a Catholic Church Authorized Version in English) and the ‘King James Version of the Bible’ (KJV).
| And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. | And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. |
Notice that these verses are almost identical in both versions. The biggest difference is between ‘netherworld’ and ‘hell’. This is not the ‘contested’ part of the verse.
The part of the verse at the heart of the controversy is:
The Catholic Church’s 'claim' is that ‘this rock’ refers to Peter, also called ‘the rock’.
Protestants ‘claim’ that ‘this rock’ refers to Peter’s previous declaration in verse 16, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Two friends, one Catholic and one Protestant, are debating this. They have gone to the original Greek and Aramaic languages for exegesis - and continue the debate…
What is SO important about this one line?
The Catholic Church bases its OWN authority on the ‘authority’ Christ gave Peter in this verse. “The Pope has Authority in the Church because, as the successor of Peter, he has the authority that Christ gave to Peter.”
IF the Catholic Church is wrong, the Pope is just an ‘elected’ official. All doctrines of the Catholic Church then become subject to errancy. The edicts of the Catholic Church are no longer infallible. The Catechism of the Catholic Church changes from the definitive interpretation of, and application of the Bible, to a book of ‘good’ rules & traditions.
That is a HUGE risk…If the Catholic Church intentionally materially altered the Bible - this verse would have been THE FIRST thing altered. It would read something like, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon YOU this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.”
The Bible does not say that, it says, “this rock”. Think it through logically…The foundational pillars of the Catholic Church are in this verse. By adding ONE word to the Bible, the Protestant Reformation would never have happened or if it had, would not have been sustained. The Absolute Authority of the Catholic Church over all Christendom would be established, permanently.
Yet, the Bible still says, “this rock”.
Opportunity, Yes.
Means, Yes.
Motive, Yes.
Was the crime committed?
The prima facie evidence says NO!
This single, but supremely important, piece of evidence Compels a verdict of NOT GUILTY!
One could go on for pages, citing every ‘argument’ Protestants bring to the Catholic Church’s authority and doctrine…the only thing it would prove is that in 1000 years of controlled access to the Bible - the Catholic Church did NOT change anything…Or there would be little to no controversy in the ‘Unity’ of Christians.
Allegations that the Catholic Church materially altered, edited, or corrupted the scriptures, based on the evidence, is proven False!
As such, with regards to these allegations we accept that the Bible IS the True, Inspired, Authoritative Word of God.
° There is an amount of subjectivity in ‘Motive’. Motive is the ‘Why’ of a crime. Why did the ‘accused’ commit the alleged crime? In this instance, we will apply ‘Achem’s Razor’: the simplest answer is probably the correct answer.
¹ Use of the word ‘published’ is semi-erroneous. Gutenberg did not invent the printing press until somewhere around 1450. Prior to that time, all books including the Vulgate were copied by hand.
² Note that while there was no ‘outside knowledge’ of the Bible, that statement regards primarily the New Testament. The Old Testament of the Bible is the same as the ‘TaNaKh’ or the Jewish Bible. The Jews had and made their own copies of ‘their’ Bible. It is widely accepted that the ‘TaNaKh’ and the Old Testament are the same (with the exception of the Apocryphal [deuterocanonical] books (included in the Catholic Canon at the Council of Trent 1546)).
That there was some sort of ‘conspiracy’ between the Catholic and the Jews to ‘materially alter’ the Old Testament has to meet with serious skepticism.
This stated in light of:
Catholicism and Judaism view the ‘Messiah’ completely differently. Catholicism views Jesus Christ as the ‘Messiah’ prophesied in the Old Testament. Judaism is still waiting for the prophesied Messiah.
Additional skeptics must take into account the Historical rivalry of these religions:
The Roman persecution of the Jews (around 70 A.D.), and the Spanish Inquisition instituted by the Catholic Church, persecuting the Jews (1478 - 1834).
posted by Unchained Slave at 6:15 PM
4 Comments:
This was a very interestng read. I completely agree, there is no valid reason to believe that anyone in the Catholic church would ever have altered the Scriptures intentionally. I think most of the monks who labored to copy it did so with pure intentions and utmost reverence. And for anyone who knows the background, so did the Jews -- tenaciously!
Really, the only arguments would be which books were inspired and which were not, and how would one determine this? And if we agree that there was no tampering, the acceptance of each book would become a take-it-or-leave it issue. It's perfect, or it goes. No cafetria style quotations.
This seems to be an argument that is floating around on a lot of blogs, as you mentioned. I, for one, would be interested in seeing the case for the individual books, both pro and con, including the disputed books. God is certainly capable of watching over His word, and if I can find a telltale mistake in some passage -- hey, you think God never thought of that one? He probably stumped the chump who made the phony, so the rest of us would get the clue.
Anyway, I wander. Thanks for the intertesting research and read! If you ever hear of a blog that's debating this issue, please let me know!
A wonderfully fair treatment of the issue. Thanks for pointing it out!
(BTW, a note about excommunication:
CCC #1463 states:
Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorised by them [Cf. CIC, can. 1331; 1354-1357; CCEO, can. 1431;1434;1420.]. In danger of death, any priest, even if deprived of the faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication [Cf. CIC, can. 976; CCEO, can. 725.].
I could be wrong, but excommunication can only be pronounced by the Bishop (or the Pope), and not just by a priest. Furthermore, I've never heard explicitly from you whether you were ever actually a Catholic, and to be excommunicated, you first have to have been "communicated". Finally, like Christ doesn't so much send people to Hell as they choose to go to Hell by not choosing Him, the Church doesn't so much excommunicate people as acknowledge that they have excommunicated themselves through their actions.
This is evident in the responses of local bishops to the recent "ordination" of several "woman priests". When asked, they said, "Do what? They've excommunicated themselves."
Anyway, suffice it to say, that unless you actually were a Catholic at one point, you could not have been excommunicated.
I'm sure that's a great weight off your shoulders ;)
Hi David,
Thought you might be interested in an article Steve Camp just posted, on the Council of Trent:
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/
Hey, David! I know it's been a long time since you posted this, but I just ran across it and wanted to compliment you on it. It's a very fair look at an important question, and one that's too often distorted by people with a point to prove.
Another piece of evidence regarding opportunity and/or means: The Latin Vulgate was the standard in the West, but not in the Eastern Church, where Greek was the norm. The Eastern and Western churches split in 1054, so any alteration would have had to be made prior to that, or else it would show in a comparison to the two churches' versions.
The time frame is further narrowed down by the Coptic schism, which occurred in 451 following the Council of Chalcedon. After that time, the Coptic Church was not under Roman authority, and so if the Roman Church altered the text, we would expect to find it at variance with the Coptic versions. As far as I know (not being a scholar of Latin, Greek or Coptic), the two are in agreement.
Again, excellent post!
Post a Comment
<< Home