Catholic Church collected, preserved, and canonized the Bible


#1

We Catholics here have insisted the Catholic Church canonized and made the Bible which contain both Old and New Testament. It was the Church who added 27 NT as part of Christian Scripture.

Yet Non-Catholic Christians say we didn’t. It seem to me that they blindly ignore the facts.

Let me quote the Decree issued by Pope of Damascus I in 382 AD in the Council of Rome concerning Biblical Canon.

At this time, there was only One Church. It was Catholic and this was before the Schism.

The Pope states the following:

The Decree of Pope St. Damasus I, Council of Rome. 382 A.D…

ST. DAMASUS 1, POPE, THE DECREE OF DAMASUS:

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the **universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. **

The list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the** Catholic Church **is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although **all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church **has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Protestant Apologists resort to opinions of so called Biblical scholars who themselves also resort to the opinions of ECF who did not consider the 7 deutrocanonical books. Yet they have not produce any decrees by the Church prior to the Council of Trent that did revere the 7 deutrocanonical books as unspired.

The list in the Council of Trent affirms the list in the other Council that affirms the Council of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.

Protestants need to acknowledge that the Catholic Church gave them the Bible. This is fact! This is history.

If you ignore this you are just ignoring the truth. I know there are Protestants who do acknowledge the Catholic Church made the Bible.

When I said made, I mean by the Catholic Church put the OT and NT together and made the Bible.

There was Scripture before the Church but it was only the OT. It wasn’t called the Bible then. Jesus and His Apostles called it simply Scripture.


#2

Manny,

I have to chuckle when some of my born again, anti-Catholic relatives keep telling me to search the Scriptures as it says in Scriptures. What my relatives do not realize is the contextuality of that passage. If I were to do as they say, I would be limiting myself to searching the Old Testament only as the New Testament was not yet compiled and authorized.

When I gave my sister-in-law that little piece of logic her jaw dropped but amazingly she still “preaches it.”

Oh well . . .


#3

Congradulation Manny! You have worded you thread in such a way that no one from the non-catholic camp is willing to “try” to correct anything you said.:thumbsup:

They must have been struck silent by Truth!! Finally!!:wink:


#4

I hope you are right Sean. The most frustrating problem I have found with Protestants is that they do not understand 2 things: history & the Bible. But once they do, they usually convert.


#5

My anti-catholic relatives say that the bible fell all bound up into the lap of an underground protestant hiding in a cave…


#6

Ok, but the problem is that this doesn’t necessarily take you anywhere. The Catholic Church is used by the Holy Spirit to canonize the Scriptures. Later, arguendo (and in the viewpoint of Protestants) the Catholic Church in some of its teachings departs from the Scriptural standard. Again, from the viewpoint of Protestants, the Reformers are unable to prevail on the Catholic Church to correct itself and the Reformers are excomunicated and/or leave the Catholic Church. The true Church then continues within the Protestant Churches. See what I mean? Put yourself in the place of those who you wish to convince (Protestants) and look at it from their viewpoint (a good thing to do if you want to gain insight into that perspective) and the point of the thread does not take you too far.


#7

I heard someone on Relevant Radio this week talk about the Deuterocanonical books and the so-called ‘council’ at Yavneh (Jamnia), that rejected the Septuagint and determined the canon of the OT.

He explained that it was not a council at all, but,rather, a gathering of Jews who supported Simon Bar-Kokhba as the “messiah”.

So, the Protestants accept the authority of followers of a false messiah for the canon of the OT. :eek:

He has just published a book about it, but I can’t remember what it is called.


#8

The Church was reformed, and did correct its errors. Those who achieved this are now canonised saints, not heretics.

If your Mother is sick, you do not help her by rejecting her and leaving her to get worse.

Sorry, this is off-topic.


#9

I did not think so :wink: I thought it was right on. If the 1st poster or a mod. does not say something, then I say let’s keep the post going from the spot of your well-made point.


#10

That was cute :slight_smile: I like it :yup:


#11

I submit that the NT books were inspired and truly Holy Writ long before any leadership put their stamp of approval on them. I sumbit that they were Scripture as the ink hit the pages.

They were even being used regularly in the churches long before then as well.

The Holy Spirit gave us His Scriptures. He needed no men to double check His work, IMO.

Yet Non-Catholic Christians say we didn’t. It seem to me that they blindly ignore the facts.

No. We believe Catholic facts and historical facts.

Let me quote the Decree issued by Pope of Damascus I in 382 AD in the Council of Rome concerning Biblical Canon.

Local council with no authority over Christians everywhere.

The history of the canon proves this out clearly.

Are you implying that this local council was infallible?

Protestant Apologists resort to opinions of so called Biblical scholars who themselves also resort to the opinions of ECF who did not consider the 7 deutrocanonical books. Yet they have not produce any decrees by the Church prior to the Council of Trent that did revere the 7 deutrocanonical books as unspired.

I believe you told us on another thread that the early Christians all used the Septuagint?

Do you know how many deuterocanonical books are in the LXX?

The list in the Council of Trent affirms the list in the other Council that affirms the Council of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.

Protestants need to acknowledge that the Catholic Church gave them the Bible. This is fact! This is history.

Actually, the real history is that the Catholic Church did not have a definitive canon until Trent: after the Reformation.

"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon.

That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent."

(The New Catholic Encyclopedia, article ‘The Canon’, Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat)

Please note that the Catholic Encyclopedia makes clear that uncertainty persisted all the way up until Trent.

The way you posted that local council, it would sound as if there would be no uncertainty at all after that.

But that is not the witness of history or the practice of the Church all the way 'til Trent. I mean, if that local council was so authoritative, then we would not have the contradictory history of the canon we see today.

If you ignore this you are just ignoring the truth.

Ditto here I guess.

This is your own church’s teaching, not mine.


#12

Yeah whatever. The Reformation were started by dissident Catholics who has access to Catholic Bibles and their personal interpretations were different than the Catholic Churchs and ultimately with other Reform movements thus different denominations starting at the earliest times of the Reformation. Bibles were always available to Catholics in some form especially during the times just prior to the Reformation when due to the advent printing press catholic bibles started to roll of the presses in mass and affordable to the common man. The lack of availability until then was not a catholic conspiracy but the result of not having the technology and means to mass produce scripture the catholic church did produce to the best of its ability scripture though copiest in monastaries who preserved and produced new bibles in a difficult and time consuming process. The Catholic Church did provide at least one public Bible in every catholic church even before the printing press to make it available to the common man even though these Bibles were very expensive to produce. If the Catholic Church did not make public the Bible Luther and Calvin would not have the means to misinterpret scripture against the church.


#13

There is no contradiction in the Catholic Councils canon but rather uniformity the same canonical findings were at the African Councils, Florence and Trent all were the same. The same consistency we find in the various councils in the first millinium concerning the nature of the Trinity. The church always beleived the same things about the Trinity but when it confronted heresey it ultimately decreed infalliably what it always beleived. Even though persistant doubt existed in Christianity before the Trinitarian Councils all the Catholic Councils were amaingly consistent here. The saying the gates of hell shall not prevail against the curch apllies here in both instances.
Actually what is not consistent is the your protestant founder’s tradition concerning the canon. Martin Luther by whom the Reformers took the novelty of rejecting hte dueterocanicals also rejected the Book of Esther, and the new testament duterocanicals James, Jude and Hebrews and Revelation. Now if anybody here is inconsistent it it Protestantism whose subjective interpretation had Luther throwing out books of the Bible and declaring a canon that did not exist in any Church Council prior to Trent unlike the Catholic Councils which agreed with Trent.


#14

We agree the new testament were inspired from the very beginning. But they were not known as scripture by many christians and many parts of the church from the very begining.

However these same books were written by catholics, too catholics and for catholics and whose inspriation was make known by the Catholic Church.

We know by common sense and I am assuming you have some that the new testament did not come with a table of contents.

So yes the books we use today have a TRADITION of being used in the churchs. But so did the duterocanicals have a TRADITION of being used in the churchs and yet you do not accept these books. So that alone is a weak reason for a protestant to accept them.
Consider that different church’s used diffrent scriptures in church prior to the church councils as well the church fathers will attest some used Clement, Barnabas, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Peter, the APocalype of Peter, the Gospel of the Hebrews and on and on it goes were used as scripture and read and studied in some parts of the early church as scripture. And as Luther rightly pointed out James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation were rejected in large parts of the church prior to the councils ergo he rejected them.

St Augustine virtually had to be a salesman at Hippo to get these (NT dueteros) books included in the West as they were largly rejected in the church. These books were not always read and recognized in church’s as the inspired word of God although I would agree they always were but without the church’s authority they might be lost to us much like other scriptures the church deemed uncanical but at one time were scripture for particular churchs.

The Holy Spirit used Men to write the scriptures and he Used men to canonize the scriptures and that is a fact despite your denials. Jesus did not write the scriptures nor did the Holy Spirit Dictate rather he inspired human writers and later give teh church the infallibility to reveal to the world what the Holy Spirit knew when he inspired the origianal scriptures. But unless you were the holy spirit one did not know infalliably what were scripture until later Councils. Your idea that it simply felll out the sky with the exact same contents in every church thoughout the land is unhistorical and laughable and why Christians like you have been duped by the Davinci Code when Dan Brown mixes some truth ie the Church canonized the Bible after there were disputes on the canon as it was not fixed for hundreds of years with fiction ie the Gnostic Gospels being considered ( they were not otehr books were considered not the gnostics they were rejeected as soon as they were known) But hey keep on beleiving your fables that the Bible fell out of the sky and everyboyd knew the canon from day one and used the exact same books from day one of the church. It just didn’t happen.


#15

Major problem is how can you know the protestant churches did not subsequently fall if the Catholic Church itself did not know it fell.
Answer: you cannot know.
Protestant churches today do not look anything like Luthers church which held to the Saints, Mary, and the Eucharist.
The solution is in Christs own words, what He builds will not fail - not even the gates of hell can prevail against what God builds.
’…ON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH…’ Jesus Christ 33AD.
The Catholic Church knows it cannot fail because it is the Church Christ built.


#16

Eileen,

What you say is true. As I posted elsewhere the present Hebrew canon seems to date from not earlier than the famous Jewish synagogue of Jabneh or Jamnia, where the leaders of the defunct Synagogue (after the fall of Jerusalem) assembled and, among other matters, decreed that Ecclesiastes and Canticles belonged to the Hagiographa. By that time the Pharisaic party was in full control of Jewish national and religious life. Hence, according to their exaggerated principle of non-communication with the goyim (the Gentiles), they seem to have ruthlessly cast out of their canon of Sacred Writ all such Books or additions which had been originally written in a foreign tongue or upon foreign soil, or which did not seem to conform strictly to the Law of Moses as interpreted by themselves. Therefore the present Old Testament series of the Jews and Protestants might in fact be called the Pharisaic canon.

This closing of the Canon by the excluding act which segragated the Apocrypha was the work of Pharisaism triumphant. Thus was the first false Canon established by those who refused to follow Christ and His Church. And this clearly post-Christian and erronneous norm was subsequently, when the 16th century Reformers similarly broke away from Christ’s Church, adopted as the Canon of Protestant Bible versions, - despite the fact that Christ Himself had long ago warned His disciples to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees”, i.e., of their specific doctrines (Matthew 16: 6, 12).


#17

[quote=Atemi]I submit that the NT books were inspired and truly Holy Writ long before any leadership put their stamp of approval on them. I submit that they were Scripture as the ink hit the pages.

They were even being used regularly in the churches long before then as well.

The Holy Spirit gave us His Scriptures. He needed no men to double check His work, IMO.
[/quote]

The Holy Spirit guide the Catholic Church for its teaching authority and the Holy Spirit still does today. I have not found any Council contradict Scripture. Most Protestants will say this, yes the Catholic Church was the truth Church of Christ but it fail away. Now, if you do insist in this erroneous belief when did it fail away? According to the documents we have, we only see the Early Church condemned heresy. We have not seen it taught any erroneous or heretical doctrines.

No. We believe Catholic facts and historical facts.

That simply Truth is the Catholic Church gave you the Bible whether you wish to deny or not.

Local council with no authority over Christians everywhere.

They do. The Pope has often and the issue is closed. The Pope Damascus spoke as One voice in behalf of the entire Church.

If you say it was not binding then the Church would not used the Latin Vulgate throughout its liturgy.

The history of the canon proves this out clearly.

Yes it proves that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible which is guided by the Holy Spirit.


#18

Are you implying that this local council was infallible?

History of Canon is Binding and the Church gave it. Yes this Council is infallible if it was not the 27 NT would not be used for all Christians. It is in this council we see the Church decree the 27 NT as inspired Word of God.

I believe you told us on another thread that the early Christians all used the Septuagint?

Do you know how many deuterocanonical books are in the LXX?

Deutrocanonical is Second Canon of Scripture which has 7 Books. The LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scripture written by Jewish Scholars who spoke Greek, The word Deutrocanonical Books were first coined converted Jew and Catholic theologian Sixtus of Siena to describe scriptural texts of the Old Testament whose canonicity. From it contains the LXX.

Actually, the real history is that the Catholic Church did not have a definitive canon until Trent: after the Reformation.

"According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon.

This is where you fail to understand. What happen during the Council of Trent? There was the Protestant Reformation and it was this time that the so called Reformers remove the 7 Books from the OT and kept only 66 OT Books.

In response the Catholic Church had to look back through other Councils that affirm the Deuterocanonical Books. The Trent did close the canon of Scripture, but it only affirmed the Council of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage. I even posted a list in those councils and it show the list is the same.

That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent."

(The New Catholic Encyclopedia, article ‘The Canon’, Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat)

Please note that the Catholic Encyclopedia makes clear that uncertainty persisted all the way up until Trent.

The way you posted that local council, it would sound as if there would be no uncertainty at all after that.

It was a Synod not Local Church. If you read the context Pope Damascus said, the Catholic Church held these Books inspired. He did not say, these books are only to be used in Rome. If that what you mean locally. You just still ignore the facts.

But that is not the witness of history or the practice of the Church all the way 'til Trent. I mean, if that local council was so authoritative, then we would not have the contradictory history of the canon we see today.

Ditto here I guess.

This is your own church’s teaching, not mine.

The Council of Rome, Hipppo, and Carthage are binding. What part of the decree did you not understand. The Pope spoke as universal speaker of the Church. If you say it was just locally then don’t the Christians at the time would not consider NT as part of canon, so you fall short in your interpretation. The Church Councils are named after the city in which they are held. Just because it was called the Council of Rome, the Pope gather all the Bishops in Europe both W. and E. Christianity to settle the matter of the Scripture.

The reason for this council was to settle what is and what is not part of Canon. There other other Gospels floating around, and prior to the Council of Rome, a bishop committed heresy by claiming OT is no longer binding. The Catholic Church of course condemned. That is why the Council of ROme and other Councils like it had to issued a decree issued to see what ought to be in Scripture.


#19

Thank you, I had forgotten that verse.


#20

Well as Origen pointed out we owe our debt in faith not to the Jews who rejected Christ but the Christians who are our fathers in the faith. Its rather simple who do we owe our debt to the Pharisees or the early Christians? The Protestants have chosen the Jews who had rejected the temple post temple destruction. The catholic church has chosen the early church’s canon (found in all the Rome and African councils and all the western church fathers before Jerome and most of the eastern) which agreed with the larger canon that protestants object to but in a contradiction Protestants reject the Pharisees rulings on the new testament and accept the catholic church new testament canon. In trying to have it both ways catholics are in a pickle as the pick and choose when they want to accept catholic authority and when they want to accept Jewish authority.

"In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words,** ‘Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set.’ **Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community."
Origen,To Africanus,5(ante
A.D. 254)


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.