D
dronald
Guest
The statement that the Bible is a Catholic book. To be fair, it’s a Christian book used by many different Church’s.
- Status
A
Amandil
Guest
No, the Bible is a Catholic book.
“Catholic” is not merely a sales moniker that is trying to sell a particular form of Christianity. Christianity is in its essence, is essentially Universal(i.e. Catholic).
Catholic Christianity predates any other form of “christianity”, especially protestantism.
The Bible is a Catholic book in that it universally proclaims salvation to all men through Christ in His Church.
The only reason that other brands of christianity have the Bible is because the Catholic Church proclaimed, protected, confirmed, and brought together those books that they deemed to be the inspired texts which comprise the Bible.
And the Catholic Church fought the attempts of others who tried to take that Catholic book and alter it to suit their ends.
So, “to be fair” by submitting to the authority of the Bible, you implicitly accept the authority of the Catholic Church, from which you received it.
D
dronald
Guest
So you’ve said two things here. Assuming you’re saying I’m Catholic and read the Catholic book that is the Bible because I’m a part of the same universal Church then that’s fine. In that case “Catholic” is a synonym for “Christian.”
Your second point is still flawed though, because I don’t accept all the books in the Catholic Bible, so how have I submitted to its authority?
A
Amandil
Guest
Well, there’s a significant distinction you’re missing, if you’re not a practicing Catholic, or you reject Catholic doctrines(such as Baptism, Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist, or the authority of the Church and of the bishop of Rome) then you are in fact rejecting essential biblical truths and thus are rejecting the Bible and the Church from which it came.
No, its not. What ever which your brand of christianity possesses as “true”, you received from the Catholic Church. Whatever your brand of christianity possesses of its own ideas comes directly from the invention of men and is not from the Church, thus it is necessarily false.
So you have in fact accepted the authority of the Church, just not in the fullest sense.
That you have some Catholic truths mixed with falsehoods doesn’t invalidate the authority of the Church, but rather it just invalidates your brand of christianity.
The bottom line is that you really have no mandate or authority to decide what books constitute the Bible.
Secondly, that has already been done, by the Catholic Church, which possesses such an Apostolic mandate and authority.
M
Mr_Clean
Guest
If I may jump in. I think simply put this person is trying to tell you the Christian bible is the collection of books/letters that it is today because of the early Catholic Churchs work. What protestants read is the same but minus what the reformers removed from the Catholic version. Since it original OT/NT format is of the Catholic Church then its essentially a bible with some of the books the protesters rejected taken out. They didnt rewrite inspired scripture. I would not look at “protestant” bible and expect major differences with exception of 7 misding books. But there is some major differences in how they interpret scripture.
D
dronald
Guest
Well, yes… Exactly. I’m rejecting the Bible as you see it and therefore do not have the same Bible as you. This is entirely what I’m saying (maybe without wording it in a way that I’m a heretic) but yes, I’m rejecting your Church’s interpretation of the Bible, some of the books and therefore do not submit to the CC’s authority.
So I’ve only accepted the authority of the Church if we have the same beliefs on such topics? No, I have come to logical conclusions and the CC has also reached such conclusions.
You would expect that if your Faith had the fullness of truth then other Church’s could also come to such truths without you. It’s only logical.
P
philv
Guest
I was a protestant and thought it was interesting with the added books in there. More religious books for the same money value. Awesome! But also I learned those books were in the original printing press of the bible, even before Luther’s time.
The bible is “our” collection of books. It speaks in a Catholic way - from the universal church to the universal church. It’s Catholic in nature: it reaches both Jews and Gentiles. It’s not our place to remove books that the early Christian church counsel has declared cannon because that was done through the Holy Spirit. We become our own little pope when we start removing and adding things, as Luther wanted to do. Protestants are holding a different bible than before Luther. Again, I don’t see the issue with it as a convert. It’s just extra books for the same money and it gives us a further glimpse of Jewish history.
It is a catholic “universal” book of books for the entire whole. It’s Catholic in nature and Catholic in doctrine. But like all books, it needs studying - one thing that is very much lacking in our modern society. Who cares where it came from if we fail to read it? Why are its origins more important than the life changing words inside? We’ll know where it came from if we read it, and those Christian writers had unity in mind from the get-go.
The bible is “our” collection of books. It speaks in a Catholic way - from the universal church to the universal church. It’s Catholic in nature: it reaches both Jews and Gentiles. It’s not our place to remove books that the early Christian church counsel has declared cannon because that was done through the Holy Spirit. We become our own little pope when we start removing and adding things, as Luther wanted to do. Protestants are holding a different bible than before Luther. Again, I don’t see the issue with it as a convert. It’s just extra books for the same money and it gives us a further glimpse of Jewish history.
It is a catholic “universal” book of books for the entire whole. It’s Catholic in nature and Catholic in doctrine. But like all books, it needs studying - one thing that is very much lacking in our modern society. Who cares where it came from if we fail to read it? Why are its origins more important than the life changing words inside? We’ll know where it came from if we read it, and those Christian writers had unity in mind from the get-go.
B
bben15
Guest
Everyone should hear this! These 10 statements basically refute every heresy in the history of the Church, and establish the Trueness of the Roman Catholic Church. 
L
laircy
Guest
- The Catholic Church is catholic.
A
Amandil
Guest
It has nothing to do with how I “see it.” Biblical theology is an objective science dealing with Biblical truths. You openly reject datum which the Early Church held as inspired Scripture.
Scripture which Paul said was “inspired and profitable” since he also used the Septuagint Old Testament which included the very books you reject.
OK, but on who’s authority do you do this?
That’s not what I’m saying at all. You accept the authority of the Bible, thus you implicitly accept the authority of the Church.
If your conclusions are false then there is no way that they can be logical. And if your conclusions are not in line with the Catholic Church’s, then they are most assuredly false.
No. Because protestantism has existed for 500 years and from its inception its only proven this assertion false. It has not only never gotten closer to the truth, but instead it has only gotten further away by inventing other beliefs contrary to the Bible.
Tertullian summed it up well:
“Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, (John 14:26) and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth; (John 15:26) grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of error, but of tradition.”
The fact that protestantism has persistently created so many divisions, doctrinal errors, Biblical deviations and misinterpretations is proof that such an assumption is indeed illogical.
In anyone within those traditions discovered the error of protestantism, they do not remain protestant but rather necessarily become Catholic.
Thus if protestantism realized its error as a whole, and repented of it, it would no longer be protestant, but would again be Catholic.
S
Sayanz
Guest
Some historical data can help clarify this further, aside from the masterly refutation done by Amandil:
Martin Luther acknowledge and recognized with gratitude the Catholic roots of his Protestant Bible. He had no choice, because the Catholic Bible was the one he had at that time and he knew that it existed for centuries since the fourth.
Thus the Protestant Bible is whatever remained of the Catholic Bible after his subtraction of books. *Everything *in the Protestant Bible is from the Catholic Bible. Thus, “All Christians today”, as the text of the Ten Reasons says, “trust the authority of the Catholic Church” that they are not reading any spurious apochrypal texts such as Gospel of Judas or of Magdalene as part of their Bible reading, and can rest easy that it is the true Word of God.
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Well, you have to consider the source.
Since Catholics claim to have written the Bible, meaning Bishops of the Church of Rome; St. Peter (Bishop of Rome), St. Mark (Bishop of Alexandria) St. James (Bishop of Jerusalem) St. Jude, St. John, and St. Paul Apostles/Bishops of various places) along with St. Matthew were all founding pillars of the Church of Rome. Hence, the Bible, which is collected from their writtings, is a Catholic book. It was never not considered a Catholic book until the Reformation introduced the enormous error of separating the Book from the Church. (Something Catholics have never done.) So now, a mere 500 years later, non-Catholics ACTUALLY believe that the Bible just dropped into their laps from Heaven without any necessity of the Church. The fact that the Catholic Church gave them the Bible is a terrible embarrassment, and is usually swept under the rug without delay.
S
Sayanz
Guest
Thanks to AmbroseSJ too for the additional data. Peter Kreeft used to refer to the church preaching that forms the basis for writing the Bible and the approval needed from the church to ascertain the contents of the Bible. To this he applied the axiom: “a cause can never be less than its effect. You can’t give what you don’t have. If the Church has no divine inspiration and no infallibility, no divine authority, then neither can the New Testament.”
The literal words of Martin Luther are, in his Commentary On St. John: “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all.”
The literal words of Martin Luther are, in his Commentary On St. John: “We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all.”
- Status