Do Protestants know where we got the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Dandy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
. . . . .the early church and the term “catholic” has not changed in the past 2,000 years. . . .Original meaning? The term has changed-seriously?
The Original Catholic Encyclopedia
Link: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Catholic

Catholic
Origin and use of the term

Catholic
**.—The word Catholic (katholikos from kath holou—throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. **

. . . . .The combination “the Catholic Church” (hē katholikē ekklēsia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnisans, written about the year 110. The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholikē] Church. . . .

". . . . .Although belief in the “holy Church” was included in the earliest form of the Roman Creed, the word Catholic does not seem to have been added to the Creed anywhere in the West until the fourth century. Kattenbusch believes that our existing form is first met with in the “Exhortatio” which he attributes to Gregorius of Eliberis (c. 360). It is possible, however, that the creed lately printed by Dom Morin (Revue Benedictine, 1904, p. 3) is of still earlier date. In any case the phrase, “I believe in the holy Catholic Church” occurs in the form commented on by Nicetas of Remesiana.(c. 375). . . . .

The Original Catholic Encyclopedia
Link: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Nicene_and_Niceno-Constantinopolitan_Creed

Nicene and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed
The profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations

'. . . . .Nicene and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.—The origin and history of the Nicene Creed are set forth in the articles: Councils of Nicaea; Arius; Arianism; Eusebius of Caesarea; Filioque. As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381) q. v., it is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations. . . . ."

Link: creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm
Nicene Creed in English Liturgical Language which we recite every Sunday in the Anglican Church:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son.]
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

—Catholic meaning Universal, in all times and all places----

Peace,
Anna
 
Yes, the Catholic church compiled, organized, and put together the first Bible (the Vulgate). Funny, yet most Catholics don’t spend much time reading it. See, now you have met a Protestant (now also a Catholic) who knows, so you can’t say that anymore. I also don’t believe the statement, “If they knew where it came from, more would be Catholic”. They would not in many cases, because for many Protestants the Bible is what they go by alone (please don’t start with the old argument about church tradition being just as important as God’s Holy inspired word, because church tradition has to line up with God’s directives in his words, and yes, all the sacraments are in the Holy Bible). Once they would walk in a Catholic church, the usual questions would arise:
  1. Why all the statues?
  2. Why all the symbolism, when it is clearly not needed for salvation?
  3. Why don’t many Catholics read and understand the Holy Bible?
I guess I took it from another approach. I had to find out what these crazy Catholics believe in. So once this “Protestant mole” (as one friend called me) gained access to the Catholic Church I found out that allot of Catholic beliefs were in fact deep rooted in biblical truths. It just seems the Catholic Church just goes that extra yard emphasizing it (Marian Doctrine being one of them, that Protestants just don’t understand since Mary herself said she was a mere servant of the most high God). Yes, Protestants know that the Holy Bible says Mary would be remembered as the most blessed of woman and recognize her as the most righteous woman of all time. Also, the continuous succession of Saint Peter “The Rock”. Many would argue the statement from Jesus just identified him as the rock and not a continuance (I mean really, who could replace Saint Peter?). Again, they would be looking at Holy Bible alone, which doesn’t talk of the continuance of Peter’s position (Protestants would say the honor was given to Saint Peter alone by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, do to his acknowledgement of knowing who Jesus was). Yet, the formation of the church was to be done as the scripture states (which the Catholic church accomplished). Then something happened in the history of the Catholic Church. Power and pride took hold of some who shouldn’t have been in the position. The authority was respectfully questioned by a Catholic monk on these abuses of power that didn’t have any Biblical backing in many cases, causing extreme hardships on it members. Yet, his intent wasn’t to break up this Holy Institution but to address what was wrong with certain aspects of human power abuse supposedly going on in the name of God. So many Protestants look at the Catholic church today and see this still (in this aspect they are wrong for not forgiving and moving on even though the Holy Catholic Church has admitted of these many shortcomings and extended grace outside the Holy Catholic church).

Sorry for the rant. But in defense of The Catholic Church, it is responsible for initially bringing Jesus Christ to the entire world (fulfilling and still fulfilling the mission given to us by our savior, Jesus Christ). Yet, many Protestant denominations seem to have more fervently taken the role of aggressive/positive evangelism as compared to the Catholic church these days. To me I’m very grateful the Orthdox Protestant denominations have taken the task, since it seems (at least from my experience with Catholics) that they don’t prefer to evangelize. They just keep to themselves, go to Mass, with many not choosing to immerse themselves in God’s Holy Word, when it costs them nothing to do so. So, my mission right now is to get Catholics interested in reading the Holy Bible. Why, because we own God everyday for the great gift of grace he has extended to us all. At least we could show him some repect everyday (just five minutes) by reading his Holy (name removed by moderator)ired word he has given us (thanks to the Catholic church for putting it all together for me to read in one convenient book).

May God Bless.

Ed

Take Carr and May God bless.

Ed
 
QUOTE=Tony888;8120275]pablope, where am i wrong?
When you said this…“To be candid, I find this type of thinking arrogant. Isn’t it more appropriate to say…”

Now, why would it be arrogant if it is the truth?
Net, we can claim the Catholic Church was the publisher, not the author (BIG DIFFERNECE)
The CC was both the author and publisher…and continues to preserve the true meaning of the words of the Bible through its Magisterium.
We can both claim heritage to these Christian scribes, that preserved the word of God
Unfortunately, it is misused and its misuse has resulted in disunity, chaos, among others.
Again, these Christian scribes did not create the bible, they copied it
After catholics wrote it, yes, catholic monks hand copied it…and at the advent of the printing press, it was widely made available.
I said early Christians/Catholics transcribed the bible, but did not author it
I think you need to read the history of the Bible.
 

From the 1st. Word to the Final WORD in the Bible; God always and everywhere insisted on ONLY One God; One set of Faith beliefs and One Church. It is Historical FACT that that Church is todays Catholic Church and a list of consecutive Popes is readly available as evidence of such: starting with Peter all the way to benedict XVI. Todays Pope.***
This gave me pause to think. If God established ONE ISRAEL for the Old Covenant, would He not establish ONE CHURCH for the New Covenant?

Israel was a God established Kingdom. Would the Church not be a Christ established Kingdom? Is Christ not God? Both would have to physically exist.

Just thinking out loud.
 
This gave me pause to think. If God established ONE ISRAEL for the Old Covenant, would He not establish ONE CHURCH for the New Covenant?

Israel was a God established Kingdom. Would the Church not be a Christ established Kingdom? Is Christ not God? Both would have to physically exist.

Just thinking out loud.
justtryin,

Yes, the Old Covenant was established with one Israel, yet not all Jews hold the exact same beliefs.

God established the New Covenant, into which Christians enter upon Baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Baptism is the circumcision made without hands and brings us into the New Covenant. If I converted to Catholicism, I would not have to be Baptized again–I am already in Covenant with God.

Peace,
Anna
 
If Catholics and Protestants knew the history of Christianity and the history of the Bible, there would be fewer Protestants and many more Catholics.

Jim Dandy
Jim. actually there are more Catholics than Protestants all over the world.
 
. . . .Sorry,the CC does not change doctrine/doagma with every wind change. . . . .
Nicea,
I would say that historically the Catholic Church as done much to guard against heresy. However, the Orthodox and Catholic “schism” revealed different doctrines, with both sides claiming the other is in “schism.”

There are married Anglican Priests who have entered into full Communion with Rome. It is my understanding that celibacy is a discipline of the Catholic Church, not a doctrinal position. However, if married Anglican Priests can convert to Catholicism and remain priests; it is logical to ask if this will open a door for other Catholic Priests to marry. It doesn’t seem fair to have two sets of beliefs regarding whether or not Priests can marry.

Today, “Traditional Catholics” claim they are continuing “true” Catholicism, and Vatican II brought about a schism from the true Catholic faith. So, not all Catholics would agree that the CC has never changed.

The standard Catholic argument is that doctrines are more fully clarified or more fully defined at different points in history, but never change. I have not found sufficient proof that Catholic doctrines never change, especially regarding the “no salvation outside the Catholic Church” issue–but this is a divergence from the OP and has already been discussed extensively on the thread entitled: What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why? I have no desire to have the same discussion all over again.

Peace,
Anna
 
Nicea,
I would say that historically the Catholic Church as done much to guard against heresy. However, the Orthodox and Catholic “schism” revealed different doctrines, with both sides claiming the other is in “schism.”

There are married Anglican Priests who have entered into full Communion with Rome. It is my understanding that celibacy is a discipline of the Catholic Church, not a doctrinal position. However, if married Anglican Priests can convert to Catholicism and remain priests; it is logical to ask if this will open a door for other Catholic Priests to marry. It doesn’t seem fair to have two sets of beliefs regarding whether or not Priests can marry.

Today, “Traditional Catholics” claim they are continuing “true” Catholicism, and Vatican II brought about a schism from the true Catholic faith. So, not all Catholics would agree that the CC has never changed.

The standard Catholic argument is that doctrines are more fully clarified or more fully defined at different points in history, but never change. I have not found sufficient proof that Catholic doctrines never change, especially regarding the “no salvation outside the Catholic Church” issue–but this is a divergence from the OP and has already been discussed extensively on the thread entitled: What official infallible declaration of any Pope on morals would you as a non-Catholic Christian object to and why? I have no desire to have the same discussion all over again.

Peace,
Anna
Good Morning:
Just a brief comment: I believe that your are confusing “dogma” and “doctrines”. It is my uinderstanding that Dogma NEVER changes, but that “doctrine” can and does evolve as the Church continues to understand (my phrasing) the revelations of God. Yes, the Church could change the “policy” tomorrow and allow all Priest to be married if they wished because that is a Church (man-made) doctrine. Please, if I’m wrong on this, someone correct me. Have a great day.

Hboggs
 
Good Morning:
Just a brief comment: I believe that your are confusing “dogma” and “doctrines”. It is my uinderstanding that Dogma NEVER changes, but that “doctrine” can and does evolve as the Church continues to understand (my phrasing) the revelations of God. Yes, the Church could change the “policy” tomorrow and allow all Priest to be married if they wished because that is a Church (man-made) doctrine. Please, if I’m wrong on this, someone correct me. Have a great day.

Hboggs
Hboggs,

I used the word discipline, not dogma.

I looked up dogma in the Catholic Encyclopedia and part of the definition is as follows:

Link: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Dogma
Among the early Fathers the usage was prevalent of designating as dogmas the doctrines and moral precepts taught or promulgated by the Savior or by the Apostles; and a distinction was sometimes made between Divine, Apostolical, and ecclesiastical dogmas, according as a doctrine was conceived as having been taught by Christ, by the Apostles, or as having been delivered to the faithful by the Church. But according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.

It seems infallible doctrines are considered dogma. Is that right?

Peace,
Anna
 
Good Morning:
Just a brief comment: I believe that your are confusing “dogma” and “doctrines”. It is my uinderstanding that Dogma NEVER changes, but that “doctrine” can and does evolve as the Church continues to understand (my phrasing) the revelations of God. Yes, the Church could change the “policy” tomorrow and allow all Priest to be married if they wished because that is a Church (man-made) doctrine. Please, if I’m wrong on this, someone correct me. Have a great day.

Hboggs
The Church cannot change the married/single status of the Priesthood. A married man can become a priest, such as with Anglicans who convert. However, a Priest can never marry, see the difference? It is the same with Deacons, they may be married before becoming a Deacon, but may not marry afterward. If a Deacon’s wife dies, he is not allowed to re-marry except in special circumstances involving very young children. I cannot quote the reasoning for this, but I know it has to do with the Sacrament of Holy Orders and I heard it explained once by Fr. Corapi.
 
There are married Anglican Priests who have entered into full Communion with Rome. It is my understanding that celibacy is a discipline of the Catholic Church, not a doctrinal position. However, if married Anglican Priests can convert to Catholicism and remain priests; it is logical to ask if this will open a door for other Catholic Priests to marry. It doesn’t seem fair to have two sets of beliefs regarding whether or not Priests can marry.

Today, “Traditional Catholics” claim they are continuing “true” Catholicism, and Vatican II brought about a schism from the true Catholic faith. So, not all Catholics would agree that the CC has never changed.
“Traditional Catholics” have no power or authority to proclaim schism. While I have heard many rants against Vatican II, it was an ecumenical council of the Church and the laity may not like it, but cannot reject it. I believe that’s why we hear so much about it, they cannot change it so they will at least complain about it.

As I said in my previous post, the Anglican Priests coming into communion with Rome doesn’t open the door for all priests to be married.
 
When you said this…“To be candid, I find this type of thinking arrogant. Isn’t it more appropriate to say…”

Now, why would it be arrogant if it is the truth?

The CC was both the author and publisher…and continues to preserve the true meaning of the words of the Bible through its Magisterium.

Unfortunately, it is misused and its misuse has resulted in disunity, chaos, among others.

After catholics wrote it, yes, catholic monks hand copied it…and at the advent of the printing press, it was widely made available.

I think you need to read the history of the Bible.
You prove my point of arrogance by claiming rights to authoring the bible.

I agree there was only one church at that time and we all owe that historical church our gratitude for preserving and publishing the bible.

However,
  • The Holy Spirit is the true author
  • The Apostles are the authors by human definition
  • The people who copied the work of the Apostles were just scribes, not authors
  • The bishops who assembled the books of the bible were just publishers not authors
For any modern church to personally claim authorship as if it makes them better is just arrogant.
It’s like wearing an olympic gold medal from your great, great, great grandfather as if you personally earned the medal and it makes you special.

We are judged by our faith and obedience to God, not by our pedigree

Again, I greatly respect our common Christian/Catholic ancestors who preserved the scriptures and published the Bible.
 
“Traditional Catholics” have no power or authority to proclaim schism. While I have heard many rants against Vatican II, it was an ecumenical council of the Church and the laity may not like it, but cannot reject it. I believe that’s why we hear so much about it, they cannot change it so they will at least complain about it.

As I said in my previous post, the Anglican Priests coming into communion with Rome doesn’t open the door for all priests to be married.
Newsy,

I understand Traditional Catholics have no power over Catholics in Communion with Rome. I was just pointing out the fact that Catholics have separated themselves from the Roman Pontiff, because they believe Vatican II changed the teachings of the CC. Though this “schism” may seem inconsequential to you; it does affect how the Catholic Church appears to those of us studying history and giving Catholicism serious consideration.

As for whether or not married Anglican Priests will open a door for other Catholic Priests to marry; I think only time will tell. It doesn’t seem fair to have two sets of rules regarding Priests and marriage.

Peace,
Anna
 
Newsy,

As for whether or not married Anglican Priests will open a door for other Catholic Priests to marry; I think only time will tell. It doesn’t seem fair to have two sets of rules regarding Priests and marriage.

Peace,
Anna
There are not two rules – only one. Priests of the Latin Rite may not marry. (Married Eastern Catholics may be ordained priests in their own Rites.) All bishops are celibate. Anglican priests (and the occasional Lutheran) who are already married may become Catholic priests of the Latin Rite under an ***exception ***to the rule. However, if their spouse dies, they may not remarry. It is a pastoral provision granted by the Holy Father at the request of a large number of Anglican priests. But the discipline remains in force.

Anglican priests are ordained de novo, having invalid orders. I recently attended the oridination of an Anglican priest. His wife and four children were witnesses, including three-day-old Peter.🙂

Jim Dandy
 
There are not two rules – only one. Priests of the Latin Rite may not marry. (Married Eastern Catholics may be ordained priests in their own Rites.) All bishops are celibate. Anglican priests (and the occasional Lutheran) who are already married may become Catholic priests of the Latin Rite under an ***exception ***to the rule. However, if their spouse dies, they may not remarry. It is a pastoral provision granted by the Holy Father at the request of a large number of Anglican priests. But the discipline remains in force.

Anglican priests are ordained de novo, having invalid orders. I recently attended the oridination of an Anglican priest. His wife and four children were witnesses, including three-day-old Peter.🙂

Jim Dandy
Jim,Thanks for explaining it better than I was able to. I have heard this subject explained, but I could not do it justice. 🤷
 
You prove my point of arrogance by claiming rights to authoring the bible.

I agree there was only one church at that time and we all owe that historical church our gratitude for preserving and publishing the bible.

However,
  • The Holy Spirit is the true author
How do you know that? The Scriptures don’t say that. The Catholic Church was the first to declare it.

The Holy Spirit is the primary author. The Catholic Church is the secondary author.
  • The Apostles are the authors by human definition
All the authors of what eventually became the NT belonged the Catholic Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. They were teaching and writing on behalf of the Church.
  • The people who copied the work of the Apostles were just scribes, not authors
Duh. Right, the Catholic monks who copied the Bible by hand for fifteen centuries were not its authors.
  • The bishops who assembled the books of the bible were just publishers not authors
Duh. Right, the bishops who selected, collected and canonized the 27 writings of the Catholic Church and named them the New Testament at the end of the fourth century were not authors. But they were more than publishers. They had to discern which writings were scripture and which were not from a large body of writings. At the very same time, the Church canonized 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. She named her entire collection of Sacred Scripture Tá Biblia, the Bible.
For any modern church to personally claim authorship as if it makes them better is just arrogant.
It’s not arrogance; it’s the truth. The Catholic Church is 2,000 years old. Read the history of the Bible. Here’s a link:

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm
It’s like wearing an olympic gold medal from your great, great, great grandfather as if you personally earned the medal and it makes you special.
The Catholic Church was the Agency of the Holy Spirit in writing the New Testament and compiling the Bible. That makes her singularly special.
We are judged by our faith and obedience to God, not by our pedigree
Again, I greatly respect our common Christian/Catholic ancestors who preserved the scriptures and published the Bible.
I again ask, why do you accept the Bible, since it came from the Church you (falsely) claim became apostate with the death of the last apostle in the first century? There was no Bible until the Church named the contents and canonized it the end of the fourth century.

So much for the apostasy theory!

Jim Dandy
 
Good Morning:
Just a brief comment: I believe that your are confusing “dogma” and “doctrines”. It is my uinderstanding that Dogma NEVER changes, but that “doctrine” can and does evolve as the Church continues to understand (my phrasing) the revelations of God. Yes, the Church could change the “policy” tomorrow and allow all Priest to be married if they wished because that is a Church (man-made) doctrine. Please, if I’m wrong on this, someone correct me. Have a great day.

Hboggs
DOCTRINE

A doctrine is any truth taught by the Church as necessary for acceptance by the faithful. The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence), or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the Natural Law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it a doctrine is that the Church authority teaches that it is to be believed.

DOGMA

Dogmas are those doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by God. A dogma is part of Divine Revelation.

DISCIPLINE

Any of the laws and directions set down by Church authority for the guidance of the faithful.

Source: Modern Catholic Dictionary, Father John A. Hardon, S.J.

IOW, all dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas.

The celibacy rule for priests of the Latin Rite is a discipline. Disciplines may be suspended or changed by the Church (she created and imposed them). Doctrines and dogmas may not (they come from God)…

Jim Dandy.
 
Jim. actually there are more Catholics than Protestants all over the world.
Yes, 🙂

but I want more, more,. more to come to the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world and receive all the gifts He wishes them to have to help them get to heaven.:signofcross:.

Christ has only one Church. It has been such a blessing to me.

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!
 
Do Catholics know where we got the Bible? 😃

We adopted the OT canon from the Jewish faith. Our Hebrew text is still their MT.

the LXX also from the Jews but most of its transmission from the Orthodox.

The NT, apart from the Old Latin and Vulgate have mostly been through the transmission of the Orthodox and the semi recent discovery of Codex Sinaiaticus (Aleph) from St. Catherines is an Orthodox Monastry.

So, you may as well say that Protestants have most of their Bibles from Jewish and Orthodox sources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top