If the Bible is a 'Catholic book', are Protestants, by default, under Catholc authority whether they reject the Catholic Church or not?

[Randy_Carson]

The universal or catholic church. It wasn’t Roman Catholic yet.

Incorrect. “Catholic” became a proper noun really, really early. And Paul and Peter were both martyred in Rome after which Linus, Peter’s successor, became the second Bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church became headquartered in Rome in the middle of the first century AD, and Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans ca. AD 69-70.

One Protestant author who is honest about the history of the Church’s name is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. While Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, he does acknowledge that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.

“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly,** Early Christian Doctrines**, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

Catch that? The Early Church Fathers had no idea of the distinction that is essential to modern Protestant concepts of “church”.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

In the analogy neighbourhoods are the Rites of the Catholic Church, my Episcopalian-protestant-Catholic-Christian friend.

Well, in my home, perhaps the City is a bit larger. But we are all on God’s holy hill; I do know that.

 

[Wannano]

Well, in my home, perhaps the City is a bit larger. But we are all on God’s holy hill; I do know that.

And I have had a lot of wonderful experiences around a campfire!

 

[JonNC]

The** Bible is a collection** of all known God breathed writings (aka Scriptures)

The Books of Moses, the Book of Isaiah, The book of Acts, The Book of Revelation, etc are not Catholic books

Of course they are Catholic books. They just aren’t only and exclusively Catholic books.

Jon

 

[alwayswill]

Of course they are Catholic books. They just aren’t only and exclusively Catholic books.

Jon

OK; I can accept and work with that description:

 

[Abu]

ComplineSanFran #28
This is something that I hear from people on CAF: that the Roman Catholic Church created the canon of today’s Bible. It’s very perplexing to me.

Why? Only if the facts are unknown.

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 Sacred Scriptures at the Council of Trent.

Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on Sept 17, 2010 (EWTN):
“The first Bible translated from Hebrew & Greek by St. Jerome in 400 AD had all 46 OT + 27 NT as did the Latin Guttenburg Bible of the 15th c. Only Protestant Bibles from 16th c. to today are missing the 7 books. But 2/3 of the world’s Jews at that time (3rd c. BC, from 250-100 BC) lived outside the Holy Land and were more literate in Greek than Hebrew. Christians from the time of the Apostles and during Jesus’ time knew and accepted these 7 books, hence their presence in St. Jerome’s Bible and every other Bible until Luther. IRONICALLY these 7 books were in the ORIGINAL King James Bible but Parliament removed them in subsequent editions.”

So I would argue that perhaps we need to expand our understanding of the Church and how it emerged into a structure that we recognize today (which is still quite diverse with many seats of authority.)

False.

There is no authority from Christ for any other but His own Church, for Christ Himself mandated St Peter as His Papal Supremacist:
**“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, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis].

Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm my brethren.”

 

[Darryl_B]

Of course they are Catholic books. They just aren’t only and exclusively Catholic books.

Jon

I believe the question is not one of exclusivity, or ownership but one of origin. The compilation of those specific books originated with the Catholic Church. It’s compilation predates Luther et al and was not revised until then. It is also greater than the scope of the Hebrew Scriptures.

That does not mean others are not going to get their hands on it and do their own thing with it. On the contrary, the Bible is Lutheran to Lutherans, Anglican to Anglicans, Seventh Day Adventist to the Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon to Mormons, Gnostic to gnostics, Jehovahs Witness to Jehovahs Witness, Christadelphian to the Christadelphians, Baptist to the Baptists, Pentecostal to the Pentecostals, and Evangelical to the Evangelicals.

(Not necessarily in that exact order and for all those I haven’t mentioned I apologize for limitation of post lengths).

 

[JonNC]

I believe the question is not one of exclusivity, or ownership but one of origin. The compilation of those specific books originated with the Catholic Church. It’s compilation predates Luther et al and was not revised until then. It is also greater than the scope of the Hebrew Scriptures.

That does not mean others are not going to get their hands on it and do their own thing with it. On the contrary, the Bible is Lutheran to Lutherans, Anglican to Anglicans, Seventh Day Adventist to the Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon to Mormons, Gnostic to gnostics, Jehovahs Witness to Jehovahs Witness, Christadelphian to the Christadelphians, Baptist to the Baptists, Pentecostal to the Pentecostals, and Evangelical to the Evangelicals.

(Not necessarily in that exact order and for all those I haven’t mentioned I apologize for limitation of post lengths).

Well, there continues to be various canons of scripture, even dating back to the pre-schism Church. To say that there had been no "revisions " isn’t exactly accurate.
Origin of scripture is indeed within the Church Catholic
Jon

 

[alwayswill]

Well, there continues to be various canons of scripture, even dating back to the pre-schism Church. To say that there had been no "revisions " isn’t exactly accurate.
Origin of scripture is indeed within the Church Catholic
Jon

"Origin of scripture is indeed within the Church Catholic "

I couldn’t disagree more:

If you want to make the claim the origin of the Bible or Canon is within the Church Catholic, we can have that discussion.
But Scripture and the Bible are not the same thing.

 

[JustaServant]

Of course they are Catholic books. They just aren’t only and exclusively Catholic books.

Jon

Okay, Jon gets it back on track. Thanks Jon.
Having a little health problem these days so the little grey cells aren’t moving as quickly as I would like them to.

Perhaps I did not explain this properly in the OP because I was thinking from memory of what I wrote on the Karl Barth thread on NCRs.
My concern to some degree was that some Catholic apologists tend to view Sola Scriptura in an extreme fashion. Blaming every historical ill on it and coming dangerously close to forgetting themselves that the Bible is a Catholic book.
My error perhaps was working from the premise Protestants would reject that Jon points out. So lets start from there.
If the Bible is not an ‘exclusively’ Catholic book, then what some (SOME) claim to be Sola Scriptura does in fact exist with an authority. By that I mean we Catholics cannot claim SS is ‘whatever the Protestant in the pew wants it to be’. As a former Protestant I know that is an error, even in my fundamentalist days I never believed that, nor was I taught that by preachers.
The Creed, which is Biblically based, is accepted by most Protestants (even non-Creedal fundamentalists would agree). Where did that come from? It came from Catholic teaching and interpretation of the Bible. So that is why I say even the most anti-Catholic fundamentalist is still following (even in embryonic fashion) Catholic teaching within the framework of what they call Sola Scriptura (though the fundamentalist would not use that terminology).
So, that brings us back to the OP. Are Protestants, by default, under Catholic authority whether they reject the Catholic Church or not?

 

[alwayswill]

Okay, Jon gets it back on track. Thanks Jon.
Having a little health problem these days so the little grey cells aren’t moving as quickly as I would like them to.

Perhaps I did not explain this properly in the OP because I was thinking from memory of what I wrote on the Karl Barth thread on NCRs.
My concern to some degree was that some Catholic apologists tend to view Sola Scriptura in an extreme fashion. Blaming every historical ill on it and coming dangerously close to forgetting themselves that the Bible is a Catholic book.
My error perhaps was working from the premise Protestants would reject that Jon points out. So lets start from there.
If the Bible is not an ‘exclusively’ Catholic book, then what some (SOME) claim to be Sola Scriptura does in fact exist with an authority. By that I mean we Catholics cannot claim SS is ‘whatever the Protestant in the pew wants it to be’. As a former Protestant I know that is an error, even in my fundamentalist days I never believed that, nor was I taught that by preachers.
The Creed, which is Biblically based, is accepted by most Protestants (even non-Creedal fundamentalists would agree). Where did that come from? It came from Catholic teaching and interpretation of the Bible. So that is why I say even the most anti-Catholic fundamentalist is still following (even in embryonic fashion) Catholic teaching within the framework of what they call Sola Scriptura (though the fundamentalist would not use that terminology).
So, that brings us back to the OP. Are Protestants, by default, under Catholic authority whether they reject the Catholic Church or not?

I mainly use technical reference books put out by the Sybex publishing company
I use them as my go- to source for accurate, easy to understand technical reference and best practices…

Using your context and definition of “under authority” ; am I under the authority of Sybex?

 

[JustaServant]

I mainly use technical reference books put out by the Sybex publishing company
I use them as my go- to source for accurate, easy to understand technical reference and best practices…

Using your context and definition of “under authority” ; am I under the authority of Sybex?

Did you even bother reading the post? If you had you would not have posted this.

 

[alwayswill]

Did you even bother reading the post? If you had you would not have posted this.

yes, I did

It seems your point is that because the Catholic Church recognized and collected all known God breathed writings: that anyone using that collection is actually (at least at some level) under Catholic authority:

Did I summarize your point correctly?

 

[JustaServant]

yes, I did

It seems your point is that because the Catholic Church recognized and collected all known God breathed writings: that anyone using that collection is actually (at some level) under Catholic authority:

Did I summarize your point correctly?

Yes, but the earlier post you made does not address that.

 

[JonNC]

Okay, Jon gets it back on track. Thanks Jon.
Having a little health problem these days so the little grey cells aren’t moving as quickly as I would like them to.

Perhaps I did not explain this properly in the OP because I was thinking from memory of what I wrote on the Karl Barth thread on NCRs.
My concern to some degree was that some Catholic apologists tend to view Sola Scriptura in an extreme fashion. Blaming every historical ill on it and coming dangerously close to forgetting themselves that the Bible is a Catholic book.
My error perhaps was working from the premise Protestants would reject that Jon points out. So lets start from there.
If the Bible is not an ‘exclusively’ Catholic book, then what some (SOME) claim to be Sola Scriptura does in fact exist with an authority. By that I mean we Catholics cannot claim SS is ‘whatever the Protestant in the pew wants it to be’. As a former Protestant I know that is an error, even in my fundamentalist days I never believed that, nor was I taught that by preachers.
The Creed, which is Biblically based, is accepted by most Protestants (even non-Creedal fundamentalists would agree). Where did that come from? It came from Catholic teaching and interpretation of the Bible. So that is why I say even the most anti-Catholic fundamentalist is still following (even in embryonic fashion) Catholic teaching within the framework of what they call Sola Scriptura (though the fundamentalist would not use that terminology).
So, that brings us back to the OP. Are Protestants, by default, under Catholic authority whether they reject the Catholic Church or not?

It depends on what you mean “Catholic”, and by authority. Christ established the Church as the teaching authority. That is the Church’s role - to preach (teach) the word and administer the sacraments (see the Great Commission). There seems to be some disagreement among Christians about how that authority is exercised, and by whom. Obviously. So, if you say that every Christian is under the authority of the Church Catholic, I’d say yes. But if that is understood as under the authority (universal jurisdiction) of the successor of Saint Peter in Rome, I’d say, not so much.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

"Origin of scripture is indeed within the Church Catholic "

I couldn’t disagree more:

If you want to make the claim the origin of the Bible or Canon is within the Church Catholic, we can have that discussion.
But Scripture and the Bible are not the same thing.

Okay, but ISTM scripture is clear that the Church is God’s institution, as is scripture itself. Of course scripture is by God’s inspiration, but it is written down by men, members of His Church.

Jon

 

[alwayswill]

Okay, but ISTM scripture is clear that the Church is God’s institution, as is scripture itself. Of course scripture is by God’s inspiration, but it is written down by men, members of His Church.

Jon

ok; if you are using the phrase “Church Catholic” to include Moses and Isaiah;
but I would think that most Roman Catholics here would not use the phrase in that context

And that is not how most would understand the title and context of this thread:

" If the Bible is a ‘Catholic book’, are Protestants, by default, under Catholc authority whether they reject the Catholic Church or not?"

I don’t think the OP changes the meaning of the word “Catholic” between Catholic book and Catholic church while contrasting Catholic with Protestants

 

[PRmerger]

I know we don’t need yet another Sola Scriptura thread. But this subject came up on the Karl Barth thread, and I’d like to hear what others think about this.

This would include ALL Protestants from those closest to the CC, like Episcopal and Lutheran, to the most anti-Catholic fundamentalist.

They aren’t “under the authority” of the CC. But they are giving their tacit submission to the authority of the CC each and every time they quote from the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

That is, they can’t know that Hebrews is theopneustos unless they say, “Who told me that Hebrews is inspired? The Catholic Church did? I guess I have to say, ‘Ok’, then since I believe that Hebrews is inspired.”

 

[PRmerger]

The** Bible is a collection** of all known God breathed writings (aka Scriptures)

So how was it “known”?

Who “knew” that 3 John and Hebrews and Mark was theopneustos but that Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas and epistles of Clement were not?

 

[JonNC]

ok; if you are using the phrase “Church Catholic” to include Moses and Isaiah;
but I would think that most Roman Catholics here would not use the phrase in that context

And that is not how most would understand the title and context of this thread:

" If the Bible is a ‘Catholic book’, are Protestants, by default, under Catholc authority whether they reject the Catholic Church or not?"

I don’t think the OP changes the meaning of the word “Catholic” between Catholic book and Catholic church while contrasting Catholic with Protestants

I am using Church Catholic meaning the universal Church.

Jon