How did the Catholic Church give us the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter benaiah
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello Artist,
You have not offended me. Thanks for trying to help me. I do appreciate it:) . God Bless,
Benaiah
 
Hi benaiah,
benaiah said:
I am a Baptist and live around and work with alot of Catholics. Most all of the Catholics I have talked with say my Bible came from the Catholic Church, but cannot seem to give me historical details or titles of books that I could explore. I thought this would be a great forum to ask this question on. I have asked this question on Baptist forums and only get responses that I have already heard. I feel this is a good forum to help me understand the Catholic position. I would appreciate all the help you could give me. I thought this was the right place to post this since I’m not a member of the Catholic Church:) . Thank you and God Bless,
Benaiah
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forums!

I sent your question to a friend. And I have skimed through this thread. Hope this helps in what your looking for.

He writes,

Actually, aside from primary sources, I don’t know of any good book that deals with the canonization of Scripture. Maybe someone should write one. 🙂 One book that he might like to read is by the Protestant scholar Albert C. Sundberg, and it’s called “The Old Testament of the Early Church” (Harvard U Press). It’s probably out of print, but still available in libraries and used book stores. It does not talk about the development of the New Testament canon, but it does illustrate conclusively that the Protestant (and modern Jewish) Old Testament is not the Old Testament of the early Church --that the early Church recognized the all the books in the present Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) OT canon. And, again, this is a PROTESTANT scholar admitting this --in fact, he proves it; and no one has been able to refute him.

As for the New Testament, here are the facts. Perhaps he would like to look them up. If he does so, he will see that they are all true:
  1. Before A.D. 397, each Apostle-founded city-church (or metropolitanate / patriarchate) had its own (different) NT canon. Some city-churches excluded certain books that are in our present NT canon (e.g. James, Jude, 2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation). Other city-churches included certain books that are excluded from our present NT canon (e.g. The Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of Peter, the Gospel to the Hebrews, 1 Clement to the Corinthians, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Protoevangelium of James, etc.). And there were also other early Christian writings which none of the Apostle-founded city-churches accepted, but which were only used by heretical sects which could not trace themselves back to the Apostles (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, etc.).
  2. The reason why different Apostle-founded city-churches possessed different Biblical canons was because each of these city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) possessed their own distinct, native liturgical traditions (that is, distinct styles of worship). While they all agreed with each other in terms of orthodox doctrine, they did not worship the same exact ways. Rather, as in the modern Catholic Church, which consists of over 24 separate liturgical rites (e.g. the Roman rite, the Byzantine rite, the Antiochian rite, the Coptic rite, the Armenian rite, etc.), each of the early city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) worshipped according to it own native culture, adapting the celebration of the Eucharist (as instituted by Christ) to suit and speak to this own native culture. And, since each of the city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) had its own native liturgical traditions, this also meant that each of these city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) possessed its own native liturgical calendar, meaning that different city-churches celebrated certain Christian feast days on different dates (e.g. the feast of Easter --the celebration of the Lord’s Resurrection --was not celebrated on the same date in Rome as it was in Ephesus, etc.). So, what does this have to do with the Biblical canon?? Well, quite simply, the liturgical traditions of a particular church dictated the Biblical canon of that particular church because a church’s “canon” merely meant those books that were considered fit for reading at the liturgy --that is, at Sunday Mass. For ancient Christians, “canon” did not mean that these books are inspired whereas other books are not. On the contrary, it was quite possible (in the understanding of the early Church) for a book to be inspired by God, yet not “canonical.” So, if a book was excluded from the canon of a particular city-church, it DID NOT mean that this church rejected this book’s Divine inspiration. Rather, it merely meant that this particular book (e.g. the Epistle of James) was not used in the yearly, liturgical READINGS of that particular city-church. For, there were only so many feast days throughout the year (and so only so many public liturgies); and this limited the number of books which would be used for liturgical readings within a given city-church. This is why the early city-churches all had different canons.
(continued)
 
  1. But, by the late 300’s, all this began to change. The Church had just succeeded in putting down the Arian heresy, which had disturbed the Church’s universal unity from A.D. 320 until A.D. 381. Now, during the Arian controversy, the Arians would often cite various books that were used in the city-churches to support their heretical beliefs. So, in order to make sure such heretics never had the oppotunity to do anything like this again, Pope St. Damasus I called for the creation of a UNIVERSAL canon of Scripture, which would be used in common by all the city-churches. He did this at a synod held in Rome in A.D. 382. And, at that time, he put forward a proposed canon, which was a synthesis of the canons used by the Patriarchate of Rome and the Patriarchate of Alexandria --Alexandria being the second ranking see of the universal Church (after Rome), and the primate in the East. Pope Damasus then submitted this canon to the bishops of North Africa, so that they could put it to the test and debate it. And the reason that Damasus sent it to the N. African bishops is three-fold: a) N. Africa had the most bishops per capita in the world at the time; and so a consensus among them would reflect the consensus of all bishops everywhere. b) The Church in N. Africa traditionally met twice a year in a regional council, held either at Hippo or at Carthage; and this would help to foster the debate; and c) The N. African bishops were known for their Biblical scholarship and had many great scholars among them (e.g. St. Augustine of Hippo). And so, the Africans took up the challenge and began to debate the canon --that is, to decide which books should be used in the liturgies of the churches and which books should not. Their criterion for deciding this was to go over each book, verse by verse, and to make sure that it agreed with the substance of the Catholic Faith that these CATHOLIC bishops believed in. And this, of course took some time. But, by 393, at the Council of Hippo, the first serious debate took place. It tentatively ratified the canon submitted by Pope Damasus back in A.D. 382, but there were still certain objections. These objections were ultimately addressed and dispelled by the Council of Carthate in A.D. 397. At this time, our present NT canon (and Catholic *OT *canon) was officially defined, and the debate came to an end. Here, it should be noted that the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation were held in serious dispute, and they were almost rejected. It was only the tireless arguments of St. Augustine of Hippo that got them included.
  2. With the canon finally decided at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), the African bishops submitted their Carthaginian canon to Rome for final ratification. This ratification came in about A.D. 401, when Pope St. Innocent I officially sanctioned the Carthaginian canon, and sent it to the bishops of Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Illyria for observation. Pope Innocent also sent it to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Egypt (the Church’s second see), which immediately accepted it and sent it to all the other bishops of the East. However, in the Patriarchate of Antioch (the Church’s third see), there was an obstacle to implementing it. Antioch, at this time, was torn by an internal schism, with two Catholic bishops both claiming to be the true Patriarch of Antioch. This schism dragged on for a long time, and it effected many churches in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. It also effected the imperial capital of Constantinople. And, because of this, the implementation of the Carthaginian canon (our present Biblical canon) was delayed in these regions for many centuries. Indeed, it was only in A.D. 787, at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, that these Eastern churches finally accepted the Carthaginian canon of the Bible --that is, our present Biblical canon.
And THIS is where the Bible comes from. It is the liturgical Book of the Catholic Church, and Protestants received it through their Catholic ancestors.

Hope that helps,

Joe
 
benaiah said:
I am a Baptist and live around and work with alot of Catholics. Most all of the Catholics I have talked with say my Bible came from the Catholic Church, but cannot seem to give me historical details or titles of books that I could explore. Thank you and God Bless,
Benaiah
Click to expand...
You have a lot of reading to do, my friend. From the look of the follow up postings!

I am a ‘cradle’ Catholic (Roman rite) who is married to a Jewish girl (father fought in the '48 War of Independence; came to USA for college and died a citizen).

I was always interested in our Church’s ‘jewish’ roots. Many Catholic rituals and sacramentals were taken from this faith (a natural outgrowth since our Lord was Jewish) and modified in light of Jesus as Messiah and the Eucharist. Some traditions (like our modern St Valentine’s custom of billets doux to our sweethearts) the Church (in various locales as the Word spread) adapted to alter later Roman pagan customs, to get those new Catholics thinking of ‘Christian’ ideas instead of pagan ones.

I think the best approach is to take one idea and ask the readers for (name removed by moderator)ut.

If, for example, you want to discuss ‘baptism’ as a custom, a rite and a sacrament, then many of us (except for Zerinus the Mormon and his crew) can give you the early Church views (from Scripture and Tradition) and the whys and wherefores of why we baptize infants.

One idea at a time, from Scripture, is always the best approach. You will be surprised (as CS Lewis and John Henry Newman and GK Chesterton and Malcom Muggeridge and Dorothy Day and countless others on this thread have attested) at what the Catholic Church, as the one founded by Jesus, has consistently taught and adhered to for almost 2000 years.

God bless you and your family and welcome to the Forums!

Pax Christi

Jonathan
Click to expand...
 
John666 said:
  1. But, by the late 300’s, all this began to change. The Church had just succeeded in putting down the Arian heresy, which had disturbed the Church’s universal unity from A.D. 320 until A.D. 381. Now, during the Arian controversy, the Arians would often cite various books that were used in the city-churches to support their heretical beliefs. So, in order to make sure such heretics never had the oppotunity to do anything like this again, Pope St. Damasus I called for the creation of a UNIVERSAL canon of Scripture, which would be used in common by all the city-churches. He did this at a synod held in Rome in A.D. 382. And, at that time, he put forward a proposed canon, which was a synthesis of the canons used by the Patriarchate of Rome and the Patriarchate of Alexandria --Alexandria being the second ranking see of the universal Church (after Rome), and the primate in the East. Pope Damasus then submitted this canon to the bishops of North Africa, so that they could put it to the test and debate it. And the reason that Damasus sent it to the N. African bishops is three-fold: a) N. Africa had the most bishops per capita in the world at the time; and so a consensus among them would reflect the consensus of all bishops everywhere. b) The Church in N. Africa traditionally met twice a year in a regional council, held either at Hippo or at Carthage; and this would help to foster the debate; and c) The N. African bishops were known for their Biblical scholarship and had many great scholars among them (e.g. St. Augustine of Hippo). And so, the Africans took up the challenge and began to debate the canon --that is, to decide which books should be used in the liturgies of the churches and which books should not. Their criterion for deciding this was to go over each book, verse by verse, and to make sure that it agreed with the substance of the Catholic Faith that these CATHOLIC bishops believed in. And this, of course took some time. But, by 393, at the Council of Hippo, the first serious debate took place. It tentatively ratified the canon submitted by Pope Damasus back in A.D. 382, but there were still certain objections. These objections were ultimately addressed and dispelled by the Council of Carthate in A.D. 397. At this time, our present NT canon (and Catholic *OT *canon) was officially defined, and the debate came to an end. Here, it should be noted that the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation were held in serious dispute, and they were almost rejected. It was only the tireless arguments of St. Augustine of Hippo that got them included.
  2. With the canon finally decided at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), the African bishops submitted their Carthaginian canon to Rome for final ratification. This ratification came in about A.D. 401, when Pope St. Innocent I officially sanctioned the Carthaginian canon, and sent it to the bishops of Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Illyria for observation. Pope Innocent also sent it to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Egypt (the Church’s second see), which immediately accepted it and sent it to all the other bishops of the East. However, in the Patriarchate of Antioch (the Church’s third see), there was an obstacle to implementing it. Antioch, at this time, was torn by an internal schism, with two Catholic bishops both claiming to be the true Patriarch of Antioch. This schism dragged on for a long time, and it effected many churches in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. It also effected the imperial capital of Constantinople. And, because of this, the implementation of the Carthaginian canon (our present Biblical canon) was delayed in these regions for many centuries. Indeed, it was only in A.D. 787, at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, that these Eastern churches finally accepted the Carthaginian canon of the Bible --that is, our present Biblical canon.
And THIS is where the Bible comes from. It is the liturgical Book of the Catholic Church, and Protestants received it through their Catholic ancestors.

Hope that helps,

Joe
Click to expand...
This is absolutely, positively, the best, ‘Short’ explanation I’ve seen on a post, or anywhere, and I’m copying this for future use. This is good work.
 
JonathanKinsman said:
You have a lot of reading to do, my friend. From the look of the follow up postings!

I am a ‘cradle’ Catholic (Roman rite) who is married to a Jewish girl (father fought in the '48 War of Independence; came to USA for college and died a citizen).

I was always interested in our Church’s ‘jewish’ roots. Many Catholic rituals and sacramentals were taken from this faith (a natural outgrowth since our Lord was Jewish) and modified in light of Jesus as Messiah and the Eucharist. Some traditions (like our modern St Valentine’s custom of billets doux to our sweethearts) the Church (in various locales as the Word spread) adapted to alter later Roman pagan customs, to get those new Catholics thinking of ‘Christian’ ideas instead of pagan ones.

I think the best approach is to take one idea and ask the readers for (name removed by moderator)ut.

If, for example, you want to discuss ‘baptism’ as a custom, a rite and a sacrament, then many of us (except for Zerinus the Mormon and his crew) can give you the early Church views (from Scripture and Tradition) and the whys and wherefores of why we baptize infants.

One idea at a time, from Scripture, is always the best approach. You will be surprised (as CS Lewis and John Henry Newman and GK Chesterton and Malcom Muggeridge and Dorothy Day and countless others on this thread have attested) at what the Catholic Church, as the one founded by Jesus, has consistently taught and adhered to for almost 2000 years.

God bless you and your family and welcome to the Forums!

Pax Christi

Jonathan
Click to expand...
This is also right on the money, and something of great importance, and a huge difference between Catholicism, (Eastern and Western) and Protestantism. The absolute strong connection to Judaism. We are the people of the New Covenant, the fulfillment as well as the continuation of the Old Covenant. The Mass itself, is a Passover meal, containing Old Testament references that point to the fulfillment shown in the New Testament, such as when we say and proclaim in Mass that we *‘join with the choirs of Angels’ *to proclaim the glory of God, in the Santus (Holy Holy Holy), partially taken from Isaiah. When we say in Mass, “*Blessed is **he *who comes in the name of the Lord”, at that part of the Mass, we are proclaiming Christ coming to us, literally, now, with the Priest’s consecration of the Eucharist. So much of the Catholic faith is a continuance, or a fulfillment of a ’for-shadowing’ from the Old Testament, such as Mary, being the ‘Ark of the Covenant’. Literally, the Ark of the NEW Covenant. Luke understood this. There is just so much and I think that when our Protestant brothers and sisters open themselves up to this experience, the beauty, truth and immensity of the Catholic Church can be amazing.
 
benaiah,
John666 said:
Hi benaiah,
He writes,
One book that he might like to read is by the Protestant scholar Albert C. Sundberg, and it’s called “The Old Testament of the Early Church” (Harvard U Press).
Click to expand...
I also came across this information,

AC Sundberg on the OT and Henry Graham’s little book on the whole canon. He is not as accurate on the OT canon as would be preferable but he does convey the correct fact that the canon contents were settled on in a series of church councils and not handed down from on high in one bound volume.

Albert C. Sundberg, Jr.'s 1957 doctoral thesis **The Old Testament of the Early Church was one he revisited forty years later in a 1997 online article which can be read here: **

The Old Testament of the Early Church Revisited

In it, he reviewed his previous hypothesis, corrected previous mistakes, reaffirmed certain parts of it, and interacted with scholarship subsequent to his thesis’ original publication.

I realize you do not want websites but the above article is the best one I am aware of on this matter in terms of presenting a coherent hypothesis for many factors not often taken into account.

God bless,
Joe
 
I am honestly not sure if it’s entirely fair to say that Catholic Church give us the Bible. It’s true that the Catholic Church determined what was considered valid Scripture by the guidance of the Holy Spirit though. And it is true that the original apostles were ‘Catholic’ in Christ.

So, in this regard, I think it would be more fair to say that the Catholic Church determined what was considered valid Scriptures from a body of documents that were already well known at this time in Church history.

The Catholic Church, therefore, protected many Christians when she spoke definitively on these matters. And without the Catholic Church’s guidance on this, and after many persecutions of the early Church, we would indeed be very confused today, not being able to fairly discern what was a heretical or spurious work and what was truly inspired of the Holy Spirit.
 
I am honestly not sure if it’s entirely fair to say that Catholic Church give us the Bible. It’s true that the Catholic Church determined what was considered valid Scripture by the guidance of the Holy Spirit though. And it is true that the original apostles were ‘Catholic’ in Christ.
Click to expand...
So, in this regard, I think it would be more fair to say that the Catholic Church determined what was considered valid Scriptures from a body of documents that were already well known at this time in Church history.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church, therefore, protected many Christians when she spoke definitively on these matters. And without the Catholic Church’s guidance on this, and after many persecutions of the early Church, we would indeed be very confused today, not being able to fairly discern what was a heretical or spurious work and what was truly inspired of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I agree 👍

There are also documents which are from the same era, are not in the New Testament but whose authenticity is beyond question. St Clements letter to the Church of Antioch being a case-n point. This too is part of the Church’s canon.

St Clement like St Linus [both mentioned in Eucharistic Prayer one], were disciples of St Peter. It is also widely recognised that St Clement was St Peter’s Scribe.

Also we have the writings of St Ignatious of Antioch who of course was a disciple of St John the Evangelist. He taught what he had learned from the Blessed Apostle and reflected upon [with the guidance of the Holy Spirit]. His writings have survived.

St Clement wrote within the life time of St Peter and shortely afterwards. He also presided over an early synod of Bishops. Intervened when Antioch deposed their Bishop, instructing them to reinstate him and to follow the teachings of and in the Apostolic tradition.

There are other authentic writings from the same period which was two hundred years before the Church commissioned what we now know as the Bible.
 
benaiah,
I am fantasied by your willingness to explore. If you looked at my profile you already know I live in the bible belt or its buckle as we like to call it. 😃 Being Catholic without the Catholic culture of say St Louis, Chicago etc. is challenging yet wonderful, because we are forced to explore our faith in light of a population that is 97% Protestant, Baptist and Anglican. Exploring my faith Traditions is a full time job.👍

I just want to say thank you for your frankness.
I hesitate to recommend one more book, it is a dry read unless you are a history buff, my priest recommended to me.
It is " A Concise History of the Catholic Church" by Thomas Bokenkotter
amazon.com/Concise-History-Catholic-Church/dp/0385516134/sr=1-1/qid=1171905091/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4698711-5809724?ie=UTF8&s=books
They have excerpts so you can get a feel for the book.
Peace be with you
Michael J
 
Mr.Ex_Nihilo said:
I am honestly not sure if it’s entirely fair to say that Catholic Church give us the Bible. It’s true that the Catholic Church determined what was considered valid Scripture by the guidance of the Holy Spirit though. And it is true that the original apostles were ‘Catholic’ in Christ.

So, in this regard, I think it would be more fair to say that the Catholic Church determined what was considered valid Scriptures from a body of documents that were already well known at this time in Church history.

The Catholic Church, therefore, protected many Christians when she spoke definitively on these matters. And without the Catholic Church’s guidance on this, and after many persecutions of the early Church, we would indeed be very confused today, not being able to fairly discern what was a heretical or spurious work and what was truly inspired of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I understand it to be, that when someone speaks of the Catholic Church as ‘giving the Bible’, they mean physically, as in codified, and also Spiritually, as in discerning what was and wasn’t’ inspired, but not in the sense that the Church 'WROTE’ it. The Church ‘discerned’, with guidance from the Holy Spirit,… and to me, that means, putting it together and saying, ‘here it is, this is IT’… not this, nor this, but ‘THIS’. When we say, Bible, as our Prot friends understand it, they don’t mean other writings that may or may not have been inspired, but the Canon, and that Canon was the work of the Church. What IS IN IT, was the work of God.
 
I don’t really have anything to add here. To the OP, good luck in search of your answers. Being raised Baptist myself, I know how hard it is to find answers that speak against what you’ve always been taught as truth. It can often be hard to swallow.

I hope God leads you to the answers you seek. I enjoyed all the posts here and have learned a few things myself.

Take care and God Bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top