Catholic Church & Bible History

[Jaguar]

Is the following statement true? It’s from another forum. In reponse to my asking some non-Catholic Christians … why God chose the Catholic church to pronounce the true Canon & protect the Sacred Scriptures, thru time, when he could have chosen any other person, group or way to do the same.

I think he is ignoring the part about the Church, pronouncement as to what belongs and not belongs.​

Historically, the Catholic Church was instrumental in the preservation of the Bible in the West. There can be no historical debate on that point. In addition, it was preserved in the East by the Syrian Church, and in Africa by the Coptic Church, among others. We have access to over 7,000 witnesses of the Bible, largely intact. There are also numerous witnesses that contain parts of the Bible or that contain alternative texts (the Gospel of Judas comes to mind). The Cathoic Church deserves praise as any workman does for a job well done. Claiming that it was the exclusive preserver of the Word of God would be excessive.

 

[BeeSweet]

I believe it is true that the Orthodox have additional texts included in their Bibles. The reference to the gnostic gospel, the gospel of Judas shows their lack of understanding of the faith though. The Qur’an contains many of the stories contained in the gnostic gospels. These gospels are simply not true, and dangerously mis-leading. They are certainly not part of the deposit of faith for Christianity, nor are they the Word of God.

I’d have to say that it’s true that the Catholic Church is not the “exclusive preserver” of the Word of God. That’s not to say that the Catholic Church is the main force behind the preservation of the Word of God.