Bible ? for all Non-Catholic Christians: Why are you not Catholic today while at the same time you accept her Authority in that you use the 27 books o

[ChosenAndCalled]

You do not understand, as I suspected. There has only ever been one Holy Church - OT and NT. Read Hebrews and see how the OT fathers were saved - by faith in Christ, just as we are. One Church.

The Roman Catholic Church was founded in rebellion at Trent when church leaders left the True Church and forned their own. The Vine continued on as God pruned the unfruitful branches. God is the Vine and His church is in Him, always was, always will be. Once you see that there has only ever been one plan for salvation and one Church, things are easier. Again, I suggest Hebrews.

As for the bible being a fallible collection of infallible documents, by that I mean that only God’s Word is authentic and itself is infallible. We don’t know, however, if every book in our “Bible” is actually from God. We trust and belive it is, but we cannot be certain.

I do know that any book that was inspired by God is infallible.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

The Roman Catholic Church was founded in rebellion at Trent when church leaders left the True Church and forned their own.

The Roman Catholic Church existed 1500+ years before the Council of Trent was called to order by…the Roman Catholic Pope! Please read history!!! It will certainly help your confusion.

Again, I suggest Hebrews.
We don’t know, however, if every book in our “Bible” is actually from God. We trust and belive it is, but we cannot be certain.

You’re seriously, with a straight face, suggesting that a read Hebrews a book of the New Testament and in the same breath telling me that you don’t know if Hebrews is actually from God - that there is no way to be certain!!!

There is simply no rational for this!

What reason would I possibly take your advise when you have no basis for which to make the suggestion?

 

[NotTooSmart]

Not necessarily.

If a small group falls away from a larger group in order to follow a different path, this does not change the path of the larger group.

The Catholic Church does teach that all Christians subsist with the Church, but they are not in full communion.

We can find multiple beliefs of the early fathers that are consistent with Catholicism but inconsistent with Protestantism.

We find no beliefs in the earlly Church that are consistent with Protestantism but inconsistent with Catholicism.

Well if I believed the assumptions that you are adding here to the original post, yes it would be illogical for me to be a Protestant.

But that is not the logic the original post is citing.

The logic of the original post is

• The early church called itself Catholic
• The early church did a number of things that I accept and believe in.
• Therefore I should belong to the church that calls itself Catholic today.

This logic is not sound logic.

 

[2nd_Adam]

It simply makes no sense to me that anyone would reject the Catholic Church while at the same time fully accept the Catholic Church’s Authority to not only write, but, via Councils of the Catholic Church being in the late 300’s, determine which of all the many early Catholic Christian writings would be considered a part of the Bible and which would not be.

Have Non-Catholic Christians simply not thought this through?

Or are Non-Catholic Christians comfortable living with such contradictions?

Certainly Non-Catholic Christians apply logic to their beliefs, yet this is completely illogical.

I’d like to know the logic a Non-Catholic Christian is using so that he/she can reconcile in his/her own mind and heart the fact that they are currently worshipping outside of the Catholic Church while at the same time reading the 27 New Testament books of the Bible which was determined by the Authority of the Catholic Church.

Also, many Non-Catholic Christians also believe in the Trinity which also was determined by the Authority of the Catholic Church.

What rule to Non-Catholics Christians use to determine which pronouncements of the Catholic Church to accept and which ones they will not accept - like belief of the Trinity vs. the belief that Mary is the Mother of God, the believe in the validity of the New Testament vs. the belief of Purgatory, etc. Certainly, they do not use the Bible as the Bible confirms all Catholic beliefs those Non-Catholic Christians accept and those they reject. Plus, they couldn’t use the Bible to say why they accept the 27 books of the New Testament as the Bible wasn’t written originally with a table of contents.

I just want to understand the logic Non-Catholic Christians use.

faithbibleonline.net/TheCanonofScripture.htm

 

[JonNC]

=nsper7;5811337]
The Council of Trent simply reiterated and restated what was already fact: that the Deuterocanonical Books are part of the Canon of the Old Testament and have been. Martin Luther based his OT Canon off of the ‘Palestinian Canon’ from the 1st Century AD which was developed by Non-Christian Jews (you know, the ones who rejected Jesus as Lord and Savior). Thus, Luther was more willing to trust a group of Non-Christians over the Church.

Then so did Cardinal Cajetan, and perahps even St. Jerome, and many others down through history until and including Trent. The fact is the D-C’s had been debated through history long before Luther. It was permitted for them to do so, and Luther was permitted to as well - until Trent, and Luther was dead by then.

There were no Lutherans at any of the Ecumenical Counsels

And there were no “Roman” Catholics either. There was only the undivided Church, which, sadly, today is divided.

Neither were the false doctrines of Sola Scriptura–which you just violated by you acknowledgment of the teaching authority of the early Ecumenical Counsels and the Bishops collegiality.

No, it doesn’t. But your comment portrays a lack of understanding of sola scriptura. this might help.
modernreformation.org/default.php?page=printfriendly&var1=Print&var2=19

Furthermore, Lutherans lack the Apostolic Succession that might have connected them to the Bishops and Ecumenical Counsels.

Some Lutherans do, but the point is irrelevent.

And while, other than rejecting the Deuterocanonicals and attempting (unsuccessfully) to throw out that “right strawy epistle” of St. James,

Who attempted to throw our James? Not Luther. It appeared in every Luther translation.
The preface that you misconstrue did not.

the Protestant Canon has remained stable

,
There is no Protestant canon that I know of, since there is no Protestant Church.

I hope the East and West will be reunited **under **the Successor to St. Peter someday soon and I have a great respect for the Eastern Orthodox.

Why should the Orthodox Churches be “under” the Bishop of Rome now, when they weren’t when those early councils (Nicaea) decided the Bishop of Rome’s jurisdiction?
Even the tone of the comment smacks of triumphalism, though probably unintended.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=SingleMomMonica;5811015]It simply makes no sense to me that anyone would reject the Catholic Church while at the same time fully accept the Catholic Church’s Authority to not only write, but, via Councils of the Catholic Church being in the late 300’s, determine which of all the many early Catholic Christian writings would be considered a part of the Bible and which would not be.

Why would Lutherans, for example, be required to reject every single thing taught in the Catholic Church? Why would you even consider this a conflict, or necessary, when we agree on the greatest share of catholic teaching, when we virtually agree on the teachings of the early councils?

The things that divide us are those things that divide us, not the things that don’t.

Or are Non-Catholic Christians comfortable living with such contradictions?

Certainly Non-Catholic Christians apply logic to their beliefs, yet this is completely illogical.

It is only illogical if you believe it is a contradiction, when it is not.

I’d like to know the logic a Non-Catholic Christian is using so that he/she can reconcile in his/her own mind and heart the fact that they are currently worshipping outside of the Catholic Church while at the same time reading the 27 New Testament books of the Bible which was determined by the Authority of the Catholic Church.

Let’s remember that the true ecumenical councils all took place under the authority of the undivided Church, not just Rome.

What rule to Non-Catholics Christians use to determine which pronouncements of the Catholic Church to accept and which ones they will not accept - like belief of the Trinity vs. the belief that Mary is the Mother of God, the believe in the validity of the New Testament vs. the belief of Purgatory, etc. Certainly, they do not use the Bible as the Bible confirms all Catholic beliefs those Non-Catholic Christians accept and those they reject. Plus, they couldn’t use the Bible to say why they accept the 27 books of the New Testament as the Bible wasn’t written originally with a table of contents.

I just want to understand the logic Non-Catholic Christians use.

I’m curious as to the logic you are using to make this some kind of issue. Are you saying I shouldn’t believe the Trinity because Rome does? That I shouldn’t believe that Mary is the Theotokos because Rome does? And where is Purgatory in the early pre-schism councils? I frankly don’t know if it is or isn’t, but the Orthodox don’t believe it, so I assume it isn’t.
Are you more interested in rejoicing for the things we agree on, or questioning why we do?

Jon

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Jon,

What I’m trying to figure out is why Non-Catholic Christians accept the Authority of the Catholic Church on some issues, but not on all.

How can they reasonably accept the Authority of the Catholic Church in determining which of all the first century writings are to be considered a part of the New Testament aka inspired by the Holy Spirit and which aren’t, but also claim that they don’t believe in the Authority of the Catholic Church?

It’s doesn’t make any sense logically!

 

[Hisalone]

Jon,

What I’m trying to figure out is why Non-Catholic Christians accept the Authority of the Catholic Church on some issues, but not on all.

How can they reasonably accept the Authority of the Catholic Church in determining which of all the first century writings are to be considered a part of the New Testament aka inspired by the Holy Spirit and which aren’t, but also claim that they don’t believe in the Authority of the Catholic Church?

It’s doesn’t make any sense logically!

SMM

Listen closely, you might disagree wholeheartly however this is what we belive. The Church that wrote complied and formalized the NT was not the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Radical]

Hi SMM as does Hisalone, I distinguish between what is now called the Catholic Church and the universal church of the early centuries.

Jon,

What I’m trying to figure out is why Non-Catholic Christians accept the Authority of the Catholic Church on some issues, but not on all.

How can they reasonably accept the Authority of the Catholic Church in determining which of all the first century writings are to be considered a part of the New Testament aka inspired by the Holy Spirit and which aren’t, but also claim that they don’t believe in the Authority of the Catholic Church?

It’s doesn’t make any sense logically!

It would seem that this question comes up quite a lot around here…this is how I responded on another thread (with slight amendments):

Here is the way that I see it:

For both Protestants and Catholics it is:
a) I have faith that God revealed his message to us.
b) I have faith that scripture is a reliable record of that message.
c) I have faith that God used fallible men to first write down that message and then to preserve and recognize it .

The Catholic adds:

d) I have faith that all sacred tradition is also a reliable part of that message.
e) I have faith that God used fallible to first orally voice that message and then to preserve and recognize it.
f) I have faith that God uses fallible men as an infallible teaching authority

You seem to think that it is logically inconsistent to believe God used fallible men as stated in (c) but not as stated in (e) and/or (f). In reality, for most Protestants and Catholics there is no logic involved. They simply take as a matter of faith what their parents or what the guy at the front of the church tells them…it is not thought through. Wrt those people, one can’t say one view is logically superior to the other as both are merely positions of faith.

For those who have examined the matter, your accusation of logical inconsistency would apply if the Protestant accepted (b) and (c) based on evidence X and criteria Y and then rejected (d) and (e) and (f) when the exact same evidence X and criteria Y exist for (d), (e) and (f). But such is hardly the case. The ECFs identifed a certain set of writings as scripture to the exclusion all else. The ECFs did not identify a certain set of teachings as sacred tradition to the exclusion of all else (what they did identify as the core rule of faith can be entirely found in scripture). Next, we have manuscript after manuscript for scripture so that we can study the degree of error in the copying procedure and note where variations occur and then do are best to determine what was originally written. We do not have the same evidence to use to determine the degree of error in the transmission of sacred tradition. We have quotes from most books of the NT in the first extra-scriptural writings (known as the Apostolic Fathers{AFs}) so that we know these works existed before the time of the AFs and again from the manuscripts we know the tendency to make additions or alterations to the text. In contrast, the AFs do not make reference to anything about Mary (for example) apart from what is contained in Scripture (her virginity, that is) and so we don’t know that those traditions (of Marian doctrine) existed at the time of the AFs and we can’t study the tendency for additions using the same approach. Wrt scripture, we do not have to accept much of anything that the ECFs did after the first few centuries whereas wrt all sacred tradition we still have an obligation to accept developments at this time. Those distinctions are just for starters…and so I would suggest that one can recognize (c) and reject ( e) and (f) w/o needing to be logically inconsistent.

Further, as indicated (a)-(f) are all matters of faith and so when talking to someone outside the conservative Christian family we must admit that we possess these items of faith. The situation changes somewhat when we are having an in-house discussion. The Catholic admits (a)-(c) and so the Protestant can work off of that admission…Therefore, between you and me, it shouldn’t be a matter of me proving (a)-(c), but you proving (d), (e) and (f). If you want to say that I must accept (d) - (f) b/c I have accepted (a)-(c), then it sounds to me that you would be in the same position as a trial lawyer telling the judge that b/c he accepted the one statement from the witness, he must then accept everything the witness said.

What’s more is that you do a very similar thing. In Matt 16:16 you see Peter make an inspired declaration, one revealed to Peter by the Father. Does that mean that it would be illogical if you didn’t recognize all of Peter’s declarations as infallible? Of course not, and that is why we find subsequent erroneous declarations by Peter recorded elsewhere in the Bible.

 

[nsper7]

SMM

Listen closely, you might disagree wholeheartly however this is what we belive. The Church that wrote complied and formalized the NT was not the Roman Catholic Church.

Since you’re making the accusation, prove it.

 

[nsper7]

Why would Lutherans, for example, be required to reject every single thing taught in the Catholic Church? Why would you even consider this a conflict, or necessary, when we agree on the greatest share of catholic teaching, when we virtually agree on the teachings of the early councils?

The things that divide us are those things that divide us, not the things that don’t.

Yes, this seems to be the common Protestant tactic: pick and choose whatever you want. Is faith supposed to be a cafeteria line? You know, I like that Scripture, I think I’ll take it. I don’t like that part about contraception, leave it. Then you go back in the kitched, knock the chef out and start putting together your own concoctions. Hmm-hmm, that smells good…

It is only illogical if you believe it is a contradiction, when it is not.

Strictly speaking, it is not a contradiction, but it is fuzzy. If you are only going to accept someone’s (or, in this case, some group’s) authority when it suits you and goes along with your personal opinions, are you really accepting their authority at all?

Let’s remember that the true ecumenical councils all took place under the authority of the undivided Church, not just Rome.

Yes. And your point?

And there were no “Roman” Catholics either. There was only the undivided Church, which, sadly, today is divided.

In strict truth, there are no “Roman Catholics” today either. It is a misnomer, but one often used in shorthand (much like we use the term ‘Americans’ to refer to people from the United States of America, even though technically Mexicans, Brazilians, Canadians, Argentinians, etc. fall under the heading of ‘Americans’ as well since they reside in the continents of North or South America).

The Catholic Church is made up of 23 Rites, of which the Latin Rite is the largest and, at least here in the West, the most well-known. All Rites are equally valid and licit and all are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. For example, I am in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

 

[Justy90]

First of all…

The Biblical cannons:

Those were not set until the Council of Trent in 1546 for Rome and the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. Until that time it was not officially sealed as unable to add or remove books. I imagine you are unfamiliar with the fact that this is post Reformation. As far as the Lutheran confessions, The Book of Concord and unaltered Augsburg Confession, make no mandate on Biblical cannon. In other words, we use the scriptures which were generally accepted by the Church at the time of the reformation, but since at that time there was no formal ruling, we currently have no formal ruling. We however, ARE, incredibly consistent and don’t change things just because it makes it convenient.

The Trinity:

This is found in Scripture, not from the Pope. Scripture, comes from the Holy Spirit via apostles (and James)…not from the Pope. The Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ, his authority stemming from Jesus through Peter, who wrote 2 letters and influenced (maybe) one gospel. Do you see a trend here where maybe even without Rome and Peter the cannon stays pretty stable?

Let’s talk about ecumenical councils…You get the Trinity and the Nicene Creed in the first, what, two? Let’s be honest here guys, the fact that Rome held a place of honor is to be sure, no one questions that. But Pope? By the second council? Hey, if you want to start talking about Leo in 446 be my guest but the major players in those councils didn’t come from Rome, and the council was accepted by the Bishops from all over not by the authority of Rome.

So, to answer your question – We hold to the Trinity because it is clearly taught by scripture and held to by the ecumenical councils approved by the community of Bishops not the Authority of the Church in Rome. We use the scriptures as were generally accepted by the Christian Community throughout the ages and as we are from the latin/western tradition of the Church it makes sense that we would all use the same set of texts.

As a side note and final comment let’s not forget that you threw us out. You want to rail on the Anabaptist tradition the Jehovah’s Witness, Mormons, whatever fine. Confessional Lutherans which hold a quia subscription to the Book of Concord accept the Scriptures as inerrant and inspired, we accept the ecumenical councils and a whole lot more. Your tone is hostile, condescending and argumentative. The Church is in factions because of sin, arrogance will not fix that, the law will not fix that, logical deductions and apologetics will not fix that, it is only the love and Grace of Christ Jesus that will fix that.

I have to say that this is a very rational post and I agree with much of what is being stated here. I will add that we must remember that the Early Christian church was not the Roman Catholic church. This makes no sense. East and West weren’t even thought of as East and West yet. Catholics can argue all they wish, but the facts remain that papal supremacy was not of the Early Church nor was infallibility. These things came later in Rome.

 

[Justy90]

Yes, this seems to be the common Protestant tactic: pick and choose whatever you want. Is faith supposed to be a cafeteria line? You know, I like that Scripture, I think I’ll take it. I don’t like that part about contraception, leave it. Then you go back in the kitched, knock the chef out and start putting together your own concoctions. Hmm-hmm, that smells good…

Strictly speaking, it is not a contradiction, but it is fuzzy. If you are only going to accept someone’s (or, in this case, some group’s) authority when it suits you and goes along with your personal opinions, are you really accepting their authority at all?

Yes. And your point?

In strict truth, there are no “Roman Catholics” today either. It is a misnomer, but one often used in shorthand (much like we use the term ‘Americans’ to refer to people from the United States of America, even though technically Mexicans, Brazilians, Canadians, Argentinians, etc. fall under the heading of ‘Americans’ as well since they reside in the continents of North or South America).

The Catholic Church is made up of 23 Rites, of which the Latin Rite is the largest and, at least here in the West, the most well-known. All Rites are equally valid and licit and all are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. For example, I am in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

This is pure baloney. YOUR church IS centered in Rome and all of those that are in communion with you are in communion with ROME. The Roman Catholic church. This is NOT the same thing as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church although it is part of it.

Your tone is very condescending and brash and wrong.

 

[Justy90]

Since you’re making the accusation, prove it.

I’d say the burden is squarely upon you and all other Roman Catholics to prove that it indeed did come from your church. After all, your church is the one who lays claim to it.

 

[nsper7]

This is pure baloney. YOUR church IS centered in Rome and all of those that are in communion with you are in communion with ROME. The Roman Catholic church. This is NOT the same thing as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church although it is part of it.

Your tone is very condescending and brash and wrong.

All Catholics are in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Obviously, all Catholic Bishops are in communion with each other. In this case, Rome is important because it is the See of the Successors of St. Peter.

Perhaps my tone is condescending, but it gets real old real quickly for Catholics who hear the same tired old Protestant arguments.

I’d say the burden is squarely upon you and all other Roman Catholics to prove that it indeed did come from your church. After all, your church is the one who lays claim to it.

Well, since you claim your “denomination” represents a fullness of the Church as described in the Nicene Creed (remember that Catholics would agree that Protestants who have a valid Baptismal rite, which Anglicans do, are part of the Catholic Church, but they are imperfectly connected to it in that they lack full communion with the Bishop of Rome and are disobedient to the Holy See).

I might add the ACNA appears to be in violation of Anglican rules. After all, the Episcopal Church is the valid and licit US Province of Anglicanism. I think the ACNA is in violation of another Province’s Sees.

 

[L2Gospelplz]

You admit to using the 27 books of the New Testament which were compiled as a result of the Catholic Church’s Authority. You are correct that the Canon was not officially set until the Council of Trent; however, the Council simply confirmed the same list which was first established by Catholic Church at the Council of Rome in the late 300’s and then that same century by the Council of Hippo, etc. hand down century after century until after the Reformation it was officially made part of the Canon by the Catholic Church.

First of all, The Council of Rome in has no formal account of its proceedings remaining. The list to which you refer is SPECULATED to have come from the Council of Rome by F. Arevalo in the 18th century. Don’t quote stuff you can’t prove.

Second, better would it be for you to have brought up the Latin Vulgate, but you know you can’t do that since the Vulgate was not a systematization and canonizing of the included texts but rather Jerome being commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382 to revise the Old Latin text of the four Gospels. Did it turn into something more, sure, but not by Papal decree. Trent was the first time you had a formal cannon.

Third, I said pretty specifically that I wasn’t bound to use the same books you do, but tradition for the Confessional Lutherans is not completely ignored or worthless. It is just not on par with the authority of Scripture. Does anyone really doubt whether or not the four gospels are Divine Scripture? Do I need the Pope to be sure of that? The Romanists didn’t until Trent.

Really, the word Trinity is found in Scripture? This is either a lie that was fed to you that you are simply repeating or one that you have simply made up. The first time the word Trinity was ever used as it relates to Christian Theology was at the Catholic Church Council of Constantinople in 381 ad. Read the Council, the Catholic Bishops by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit had to coin a new word to describe the Mystery of God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit One God / 3 Persons. Because nothing in the Bible contradicts the official teachings of the Catholic Church, you will certainly not find anything in the New Testament which contradicts this belief in the Trinity, but you will not find the word Trinity nor the specific definition of Trinity in the Bible.

Seriously? Now you’re just being mean. I never said the word “trinity” was found in scripture. However, the truth to which the word refers is. Furthermore, you sound like a Mormon, “The angel Moroni was angry with Joseph Smith so he had to coin a new phrase.” Listen, if I completely reject the use of the word “Trinity” maybe because I think “Super cool 3 person one substance God” sounds better it doesn’t make one lick of difference. We accept the ecumenical councils NOT because they are inspired and infallible, but because THEY WERE RIGHT. How do we know they were right you ask…read the Bible it’s fairly self explanatory unless you’re a Unitarian.

The Ecumenical Councils were convened by the Authority of the Pope and were approved by the Bishops under the authority of the Pope.

The first councils were called under authority of the Emperor, under the protection of the Emperor. U Phailz.

Trinity is not found in a single verse of the Bible - it is clearly taught via Tradition of the Catholic Church.

The truth to which the word “trinity” refers is clearly taught in Scripture, long before this Pope talk was an issue. U still phailz

Based on the above responses, it appears that …

U R Gud @ Phailz + not nize pursen

 

[SingleMomMonica]

SMM

Listen closely, you might disagree wholeheartly however this is what we belive. The Church that wrote complied and formalized the NT was not the Roman Catholic Church.

First the Catholic Church is not limited to the Roman Rite alone. There are several Catholic Rites.

Second there was no other Church in History except for the Catholic Church for over the first 1000 years. To even suggest that there was some “Other” Christian Church back then is simply non-sense since History proves it! Read any of the writings from the Christians of the first, second, third, etc. centuries - they celebrated the Eucharist by eating the Body and Blood of Jesus at each Mass/Divine Liturgy, they acknowledged the Authority of the Bishops and the Primacy of Rome, they went to Confession, they Baptized their infants, etc., etc. There was no “Other” Church. Even after the Orthodox Churches split from Rome, the Orthodox continued to practice the same Faith the same way with the same Sacraments/Mysteries. The first time in History that there was some “Other” Church which did not practice the Faith the same way because they eliminated most of the Sacraments was in the 1500’s.

You are correct, I disagree with your line of thinking because in order for me to believe that way, I’d have to completely ignore History or somehow re-write History to come up with that lie that somehow the Catholic Church wasn’t there.

You want me to become ignorant! But I refuse. God gave me intelligence to use. He gave you intelligence to use too! Please use it. Look at the facts. Look at history.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

This is pure baloney. YOUR church IS centered in Rome and all of those that are in communion with you are in communion with ROME. The Roman Catholic church. This is NOT the same thing as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church although it is part of it.

Your tone is very condescending and brash and wrong.

It’s surprising for you to throw that in there after you presume to tell Catholics that their Church is only made up of one Rite - which is pure non-sense.

The poster was correct there are many Rites within the Catholic Church. It is also correct to say that all Rites of the Catholic Church are in communion with the Bishop of Rome, but that communion does not mean that they are all “Roman” Catholics.

It was the Catholic Church whose Bishops came together in various Councils under the Authority of the Bishop of Rome aka Pope and by the power and direction of the Holy Spirit made decrees of the Catholic Faith - which books to be considered part of the Bible, the belief in the Trinity, etc. History shows this is the case.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I will add that we must remember that the Early Christian church was not the Roman Catholic church. This makes no sense.

You are correct, the Early Christian Church was the CATHOLIC CHURCH, not just the Roman Catholic Church, but included all the other Catholic Churches: the Catholic Church in Alexandria, the Catholic Church in Antioch, the Catholic Church in Ephesus, the Catholic Church in Thessolonika, the Catholic Church in Byzantium, the Catholic Church in Sicily, the Catholic Church in Ethiopia, the Catholic Church in Jerusalem, etc.

Just as today, the Catholic Church is made up of may Rites, not just the Roman Rite.

The Catholic Church back then, just as the Catholic Church now, was in full communion with the Bishop of Rome aka the Pope. The only difference between then and now is that now there are baptized Christians who are not a part of the Catholic Church.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I’d say the burden is squarely upon you and all other Roman Catholics to prove that it indeed did come from your church. After all, your church is the one who lays claim to it.

The very fact that you have a Bible is proof that it came from the Catholic Church.

Look in your Bible and see who did the Translations for the version of the Bible you are reading.
Contact the Translators and find out if they Translated from an existing Translation or from the original manuscripts.

If from another Translation, then go to them. If from original manuscripts, then find out where they obtained the original manuscripts - they got them from the Catholic Church!

If they claim they got them from any other Church, then inquire from that Church where they got the manuscripts - keep going back in History. All roads lead to Rome.

Just inquire. I dare you.