Counter arguments that Catholics didn't bring the world the Bible?

[Abu]

Souldiver #1
when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is–in effect–to usurp the natural power and authority of God Himself that worked through the Apostles.

They sometimes mention that Catholics came in around 300 years later after Jesus

1. First we listen to the Christ Himself – Peter did not “assume leadership” he was commanded by Christ to lead His Church.
   Jesus Himself mandated: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

**Jesus explicitly made four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus we see that no one else has the authority of Christ’s chosen, Peter, to lead His Church.

1. At the Last Supper Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to them, saying: “This is My Body, which will be given up for you.” (Lk 22: part 19). After they had eaten, He took the cup and said: “This cup is the new covenant In My Blood, which will be shed for you.” (v 20). [Transubstantiation]. “Do this in memory of Me.” (v 19). These Apostles, led by Peter celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and ordained other priests and bishops.
2. Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).
3. Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did not write the Sacred Scriptures but gave us His Catholic Church which with His authority declared which of the writings were the inspired Word of God and comprise the Sacred Scriptures. The books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God were authorized by Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament – clearly showing the authority of Christ’s Church, and culminating in the defined Canon of the Council of Trent.

 

[TimothyH]

Luke, who wrote a good part of the New Testament, wasn’t an apostle. St. Paul, who wrote A lot of what Luke didn’t write, wasn’t one of the 12 apostles. The canon of Scripture didn’t fall out of the sky. It was determined at Church (Catholic Church) councils under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No matter what others say to muddy the waters, the Bible came out of the Catholic Church.

The Bible" may have come out of the the Catholic Church but Sacred Scripture, the inspired word of God, did not.

The Old Testament is more than 2/3 of the Bible. It was written before the Catholic Church existed. The rest we can debate but the portion of the Bible that is the OT came out of Judaism.

-Tim-

 

[fisherman_carl]

carm.org/did-roman-catholic-church-give-us-our-bible

I can’t explain them all, so please read for more info.

But one that strike me is that it says: Fourth, when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit. There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is–in effect–to usurp the natural power and authority of God Himself that worked through the Apostles.

I always thought that the reason that the Catholic can recognize what’s the authentic Apostolic scripture is that it’s the same as the one they are teaching orally because there was a lot of texts presented as scripture to choose from and has to recognize which of them are authentic to be sure.

They sometimes mention that Catholics came in around 300 years later after Jesus, but I always thought that Catholics are the direct same time period continuation of Christianity that had not yet claim the name Catholic before.

How to defend the Catholics in this?

They are talking about the NT canon only I guess. What they say is full of half truths. In actuality there were several canons by the 4th century. The church decided to standardize the canon of scripture. It wasn’t until after Christianity was legalized in the 4th century that bishops were free to travel and meet to discuss the canon. After several decades the canon was finally settled. So it wasn’t a no brainer as the article seems to say. It wasn’t like there was only one undisputed canon all along and the church just officially made it the canon. If you look at the codex online from the 4th century you see other books like the Shepherd of Hermas.

The Catholic Church bishops are in a direct line of succession to the Apostles. And the first known writing use of the terms Catholic Church was in the beginning of the second century.

These guys are willing to accept only the writings that come from the Apostles, but not the church that comes from them.

 

[Saul_to_Paul_1]

The canon of Sacred Scripture was formalized by the Council of Rome in 382, reaffirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) and again reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563) in response the the heresy of the Protestant reformation - “Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority.” - and again by Vatican I (1870).

Of course, as Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, so the Hebrew Scriptures were included in the canon of the Bible, which is Sacred Scripture. The Old Testament cannot be fully understood unless it is read in the light of the New Testament, since the prophecies of the Old Testament find their fulfillment in Christ.

It was the Holy Spirit, working through the Chirch established by Christ and led by the apostolic successors to Peter, that established the canon of scripture.

 

[TimothyH]

The canon of Sacred Scripture was formalized by the Council of Rome in 382, reaffirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) and again reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563) in response the the heresy of the Protestant reformation - “Henceforth the books of the OT and the NT, protocanonical and deuterocanonical alike, in their entirety and with all their parts, comprise the canon and are held to be of equal authority.” - and again by Vatican I (1870).

Of course, as Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism, so the Hebrew Scriptures were included in the canon of the Bible, which is Sacred Scripture. The Old Testament cannot be fully understood unless it is read in the light of the New Testament, since the prophecies of the Old Testament find their fulfillment in Christ.

It was the Holy Spirit, working through the Chirch established by Christ and led by the apostolic successors to Peter, that established the canon of scripture.

The canon of the Bible is a list of inspired writings. It is a list. Nothing more.

Sacred Scripture is the inspired text itself.

The canon of scripture is not scripture. They are not the same thing.

-Tim-

 

[JohnR77]

The canon of the Bible is a list of inspired writings. It is a list. Nothing more.

Sacred Scripture is the inspired text itself.

The canon of scripture is not scripture. They are not the same thing.

-Tim-

To say that the Canon is nothing more leaves to much unsaid. Without the canon, without an infallible certainty that say Romans, or Gospel of John, is part of the canon, then a person has no certainty for anything the “Bible” says because he has no certainty what the Bible is.

You might like this article that says the Catholic Church does not place itself above the Bible

patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/catholic-church-superior-to-the-bible.html

I can’t explain them all, so please read for more info.

But one that strike me is that it says: *
There wasn’t any real issue of whether or not they were authentic. Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church. To make such a claim is–in effect–to usurp the natural power and authority of God …*

Then how does one decide which books to place into his Bible ?

The following verse from St. Paul is difficult to explain as being the inspired Word of God, if we did not have the authority of the Church to clarify that it is.

**1 Corinthians 7:12 **
**“To the rest I say, not the Lord, that … ” **RSV

It is not obvious as to which books belong in the Bible or even how many books there are in the Bible. There are 72 inspired books counting here in the older traditional manner where Jeremiah and his Lamentations are counted as one book. This is why you will sometimes read the canon as comprising 73(72) books.]

In the following where the author does not convey that he realizes that the Holy Spirit is working through him.

Daniel 9:2
“ … in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, tried to understand in the Scriptures the counting of the years of which the LORD spoke to the prophet Jeremiah …”

1 Corinthians 1:16
“(I baptized the household of Stephanas also; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)”

Paul’s Letter to Philemon is not obviously Sacred Scripture. Paul is sending Onesimus, who is a slave according to verse 16 back to his owner, who according to verse 14 is not compelled by St. Paul in any way to set him free.

Philemon 1: 12
To Philemon in regards to **Onesimus, a slave … **
“I am sending him back to you”

The Holy Spirit worked through men while fully respecting their own free will. Their own humble assessments of what they were doing and saying does not negate or take away what God was doing through them. And conversely, the claim that a book is inspired would not make it so. The Koran and the Book of Mormon claim inspiration but clearly they are not.

See below examples of St. Paul writing about everyday circumstances rather than intending on writing an intended detailed systematic catechism. He assumes his readers are already immersed in tradition which gives light to what he writes.

1 Timothy 5:23
“No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.”

2 Timothy 4:13

“When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.”

The Protestant is like a child who has forgotten his parents and what he received from them, in this case the Bible. Neither God nor Moses directly placed into my hands the Pentateuch. The early Christians were martyred for preserving and passing on the Sacred Scriptures. The financial cost were huge as well.

Jimmy Akins writes:For example, E. Randolph Richards estimates that it would have cost Paul around $2,275 to produce Romans … Romans contains 433 verses, and if we scale that up for the Gospels, we get these figures:

  Mark: $3,562
  John: $4,618
  Matthew: $5,627
  Luke: $6,047

End Quote
I believe these figures (as well as his Markan Priority arguments, etc) are way off base if one considers the amount of time it took a scribe to copy them. The scribes were considered highly skilled in their day. Today if one were to ask for a bill from say a doctor or a lawyer to work exclusively for a company for that equal amount of time, the cost would be much greater than the figures above. One lawyer I know charges $400 an hour, and he is not expensive by most standards.

.

 

[Marty100]

The Church fathers were mainly Christian Bishops and Theologians of the 4th century. The Roman Catholic church we know today had not formed yet. There was no Pope or Cardinals yet. The Roman Catholic Church was an attempt to unify all Christians but it failed to do that as disagreements among Christians was true then as it is true today.

I believe the first Titled Pope doesn’t appear until the 6th Century.

 

[TimothyH]

You might like this article that says the Catholic Church does not place itself above the Bible

patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/09/catholic-church-superior-to-the-bible.html

I’m well aware of what the Catholic Church says about the Bible.

The Catechism says that the Church has received the Bible as a gift and it its servant.

Those are the Church’s words, not mine.

-Tim-

 

[Abu]

Marty100 #27
The Church fathers were mainly Christian Bishops and Theologians of the 4th century. The Roman Catholic church we know today had not formed yet

.
The first error disregards Jesus Himself:
**Jesus explicitly made four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." (Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve, also].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Thus we see that Jesus very specifically formed His Church, and no other, on Peter leading the twelve Apostles, no one else has the authority of Christ’s chosen, Peter, to lead His Church.

Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek *katholike *meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

There was no Pope or Cardinals yet. The Roman Catholic Church was an attempt to unify all Christians but it failed to do that as disagreements among Christians was true then as it is true today.

The second error disregards history.
Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

No other Church has been founded by the Christ, the Son of God, and no other sect or religion has all the marks of Christ’s Church – one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

I believe the first Titled Pope doesn’t appear until the 6th Century.
The title was not immediately applied to St Peter and the earliest Popes.

**Was Peter the first Pope?
**fisheaters.com/rock.html
‘But where is the word “pope” in the Bible? Well, where is the word "father, "because that’s what “Pope” means (“pope” means “papa”) . But you won’t find the English word “pope” there any more than you’d find the word “Trinity.” The reality, though, is there, in Peter, from the very beginning. The ecclesiastical offices of Bishops (episkopos), elders (presbyteros, from which is derived the word “priest”), and deacons (diakonos) were already in place in the New Testament (Acts 20:28, Philippians 1:1, Acts 1:20, 20:28, Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 2:25, Acts 15:2-6, 21:18, Hebrews 11:2, 1 Peter 5:1, 1 Timothy 5:17). The Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is simply the successor of Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome and head of the earthly Church.’