For ALL protestants on this forum

[SacredHeartFan]

How can you use your Bible and know it’s true if the Catholic Church set the layout and all the books for the Bible? (excluding the Deuterocanonical Books I know you don’t have those) (spelling?) Just a question I don’t a huge debate and if your a Catholic, remember that what you say reflects our Church.

 

[jmcrae]

How can you use your Bible and know it’s true if the Catholic Church set the layout and all the books for the Bible? (excluding the deuteromicles I know you don’t have those) (spelling?) Just a question I don’t a huge debate and if your a Catholic, remember that what you say reflects our Church.

“Deuterocanonical books.”

That’s a good question; I hope you get a good answer.

 

[MarkBrown]

Hey, the Roman Catholic church can get it right sometimes

Joking aside.

While there are some you would call protestants that dislike or hate anything to do with the RCC, many do not. The church starting with in the 2nd century began to list the canon. Around 180 IIRC the Muratorian Canon, St Athanasius Easter letter of 367, the synods of Hippo and Carthage (393/397) all listed the canon.

So if a protestant has angst about the Roman Church, just go back to the 2nd century. Also understand, your definition of catholic and a protestants are different. In many cases protestants will use catholic for the church in the west and Roman Catholic for the church under the direction and control of the Pope. What has happened in many, too many, protestant churches is a knee jerk negative reaction to catholic. To make sure they are not mistaken for a Roman Catholic, they will reject even the word catholic.

I believe the Holy Spirit guided the Fathers to set the canon. So, I am not basing my belief on the Fathers as much as the Holy Spirit. The Fathers could make mistakes, er Tertullian and Origen spring to mind.

Hope that helps.

I will be praying for you as you listen for Gods’ guidance in your life.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Another baiting thread.

 

[MarkBrown]

Another baiting thread.

I hope not, as I swallowed it all the way to the cork!

 

[microhun2700]

Catholics and Protestants have different Bibles??? I did not know this. How are they different? Are the interpretations different?
I was looking to buy a new Bible with a more modern translation. What would be a good Catholic Bible to get?

 

[ChristianRoots]

Catholics and Protestants have different Bibles??? I did not know this. How are they different? Are the interpretations different?
I was looking to buy a new Bible with a more modern translation. What would be a good Catholic Bible to get?

The Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition Bible is a beautiful translation.

 

[Publisher]

The Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition Bible is a beautiful translation.

I use the RSV Oxford Study Bible with Apocrypha/Dueterocanical books…it was published as the “Common Bible” in the '70’s, including the “extra” books that the Orthodox and Catholics use. Some of the books are not in the Catholic canon but are in the Orthodox, and visa-versa…I have very much enjoyed using them…I particualarly like Wisdom.

 

[jmcrae]

Catholics and Protestants have different Bibles??? I did not know this. How are they different? Are the interpretations different?
I was looking to buy a new Bible with a more modern translation. What would be a good Catholic Bible to get?

There are quite a few good ones. Go to your Catholic bookstore, and watch for the “Imprimatur” and “Nihil Obstat” on the publisher’s page.

Once you’ve made sure it has those, then the next step is to test it for readability.

A good way to test it is to randomly flip it open to any page, and read through the whole page. If you can read through the whole page without encountering more than four words that you don’t know the meaning of offhand, and if it “flows” easily, without seeming awkward or choppy to you if you were to try to read it out loud, then that is the Bible for you.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Simple, textual criticism, there are thousands of biblical manuscripts which tells us they were considered throughout time supreme authority in the church and church fathers manuscripts are only a handful in conparison, which tells me their authority was no where near that of the books in the bible.

Also, knowing one’s history helps too.

 

[LutheranDK]

How can you use your Bible and know it’s true if the Catholic Church set the layout and all the books for the Bible? (excluding the Deuterocanonical Books I know you don’t have those) (spelling?) Just a question I don’t a huge debate and if your a Catholic, remember that what you say reflects our Church.

The answer is quite simple: The Roman church, as we know it today, did not exist when Canon was decided. The four Gospels, and Paul’s letters have been recognized as authoritative as far back as our sources go - and at least to Muratori’s canon in the middle of the Second Century.
As for the rest of the NT: All of canon was in place at conclusion of the Council of Nicea in 325 - still well before the emergence of the Roman church as we know it.

 

[jmcrae]

The answer is quite simple: The Roman church, as we know it today, did not exist when Canon was decided.

What do you call it, then, when the Bishop of Rome, after a period of consultation, tells the other Bishops what to do, as Pope Innocent did when he promulgated the canon of the New Testament in about 405 AD or so?

The four Gospels, and Paul’s letters have been recognized as authoritative as far back as our sources go - and at least to Muratori’s canon in the middle of the Second Century.
As for the rest of the NT: All of canon was in place at conclusion of the Council of Nicea in 325 - still well before the emergence of the Roman church as we know it.

St Irenaeus of Lyons was putting the Bishop of Rome at the top of the hierarchy in 180 AD.

 

[inthecloud]

The funny thing is that the CC putcChapters in the Bible in the 1200s. Protestants that hate all things catholic use them, so the Orthodox and the Jews.
Maybe the are the Mark of the Beast!

 

[cascherman]

The answer is quite simple: The Roman church, as we know it today, did not exist when Canon was decided. The four Gospels, and Paul’s letters have been recognized as authoritative as far back as our sources go - and at least to Muratori’s canon in the middle of the Second Century.
As for the rest of the NT: All of canon was in place at conclusion of the Council of Nicea in 325 - still well before the emergence of the Roman church as we know it.

So you accept the Catholic Church prior to how it is now? What year is safe to say is the cut off for the old Church and the now ‘Roman Church’?

 

[LutheranDK]

So you accept the Catholic Church prior to how it is now? What year is safe to say is the cut off for the old Church and the now ‘Roman Church’?

If by “the Catholic Church prior to how it is now”, you simply mean what I would define as “the Roman church” - then never.
But the Roman church (defined as the church with the bishop of Rome in supreme command, and “traditions” being as important as Scripture, along with the cult of Mary and “the saints”) did not come into existence until some time after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Of course, this was a gradual process.The cult of Mary and the saints started shortly after Christianity was made the state religion, that is: before the fall of the Empire, by “former” pagans who needed transitions figures from their many “gods”.
The pope:
The bishop of Rome was NOT universally recognized (in the West- the East never did) as the head of the church until well into the Dark Ages, and therefore the creation of the Roman church as it is known today must be placed sometime after the fall of the Empire, and before the catholization of England in the…6th century I think.

 

[cascherman]

If by “the Catholic Church prior to how it is now”, you simply mean what I would define as “the Roman church” - then never.
But the Roman church (defined as the church with the bishop of Rome in supreme command, and “traditions” being as important as Scripture, along with the cult of Mary and “the saints”) did not come into existence until some time after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.
Of course, this was a gradual process.The cult of Mary and the saints started shortly after Christianity was made the state religion, that is: before the fall of the Empire, by “former” pagans who needed transitions figures from their many “gods”.
The pope:
The bishop of Rome was NOT universally recognized (in the West- the East never did) as the head of the church until well into the Dark Ages, and therefore the creation of the Roman church as it is known today must be placed sometime after the fall of the Empire, and before the catholization of England in the…6th century I think.

I am a former Lutheran. So, I know from experience some of the ideas you have. There are a lot of claims in that one post, so I will touch on the one that you mentioned several times, also because it jumps out at me.

You are a Lutheran and you recite the Nicene Creed frequently in your services. What is your explanation of “I believe in the Communion of Saints”? They commune together amongst themselves? Because if so, that is hardly an item that need be included in our creed. All the items in the Nicene Creed are core doctrines and I hardly find communication between the Saints in heaven to be something that is frequently spoken about. I would dare say it’s fairly obvious what the actual meaning is.

More Patristic research on your part will make clear our teachings when it comes to the Pope, Mary, and the Saints.

Also, we are told from the Bible that we are to hold to the traditions that we have been taught.

 

[cascherman]

Here is a start for you concerning the Papacy

Pope Clement I

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us , let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

 

[SIA]

How can you use your Bible and know it’s true if the Catholic Church set the layout and all the books for the Bible? (excluding the Deuterocanonical Books I know you don’t have those) (spelling?) Just a question I don’t a huge debate and if your a Catholic, remember that what you say reflects our Church.

Everything you said here is simply up for debate and you have it wrong when you say that we don’t have the deuterocanon (apocrypha) because we do.