SHORTENED: The Catholic Church compiled the holy Bible in the 4th century.

[Zooey]

joe370;7168274:

Why do you keep calling the early church the CC?

.

[SIGN1]
Because that’s what it was.
[/SIGN1]

That’s what I learned in the Free Methodist Church, back in my childhood.
(We used to park the dinosaur-drawn chariot, lock the gates against the attacks by the Wild Poodles Who Roamed The Earth, and go on in).
The first time I heard someone claim that the early church was anything other than Catholic, I was an adult. You could have knocked me over with a feather.
Talk about revisionist history!! Which is the answer to OP’s question by the way: The reason some non-Catholics don’t believe that the Catholic Church complied the Bible is that they have fallen prey to revisionist history.

[SIGN1]
Zooey’s definition of “revisionist history”: Lies, damned lies, wishful thinking, and anti-Catholic nastiness.
[/SIGN1]

 

[Cat_Herder]

Yes, a difference in composition of the Bible itself, not just “where they put the books.” For example, the 3rd Book of Maccabees

… is used in the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

 

[GaryTaylor]

St Ignatius …The second Bishop of Antioch, Syria, this disciple of the beloved Disciple John was consecrated Bishop around the year 69 by the Apostle Peter, the first Pope. A holy man who was deeply loved by the Christian faithful, he always made it his special care to defend “orthodoxy” (right teaching) and “orthopraxy” (right practice) among the early Christians.

In 107, during the reign of the brutal Emperor Trajan, this holy Bishop was wrongfully sentenced to death because he refused to renounce the Christian faith. He was taken under guard to Rome where he was to be brutally devoured by wild beasts in a public spectacle. During his journey, his travels took him through Asia Minor and Greece. He made good use of the time by writing seven letters of encouragement, instruction and inspiration to the Christians in those communities. We still have these letters as a great treasure of the Church today.

The content of the letters addressed the hierarchy and structure of the Church as well as the content of the orthodox Christian faith. It was Bishop Ignatius who first used the term “catholic” to describe the whole Church. These letters connect us to the early Church and the unbroken, clear teaching of the Apostles which was given to them directly by Jesus Christ. They also reveal the holiness of a man of God who became himself a living letter of Christ. The shedding his blood in the witness of holy martyrdom was the culmination of a life lived conformed to Jesus Christ. Ignatius sought to offer himself, in Christ, for the sake of the Church which he loved. His holy martyrdom occurred in the year 107.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

… is used in the Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

Thus the inconsistency.

 

[Todd520]

No CH, you biffed this one big time

… along with every exalted Latter Day Saint (at least if you are a Brighamite Mormon). That’s not a Trinity, that’s a lot more than three Divine Persons.

Which is why you need more Scriptures to explain it all and fit 'em all in.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Thus the inconsistency.

Catholic. Approved by the Pope. What inconsistency?

 

[Cat_Herder]

No CH, you biffed this one big time

I’m afraid not.

 

[Todd520]

Well then provide some evidence that LDS believe, honor, or pray to anyone but God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost

Bringing up exhaltation is a red herring

• catholic Theosis
• timing is kinda , like , after the end of the world

I’m afraid not.

 

[simspt]

joe370;7168274:

If you want to tell me what I believe at least get it right. The infallible word of God is that which was handed down from the apostles whether by word or in writing. (And by infallible I mean the infallible authority that only the apostles possessed.) Nobody in the early church was able to connect certain books to the apostles, but because of other criteria, they were accepted into the canon. Do those books carry the same authority as the ones known to be apostolic? I don’t know and you don’t know so why proclaim them as “infallible”?

You are saying here that the book of Hebrews is traceable to the late first century, yet the western church did not accept it until the fourth century, and that thanks to Athanasius. It took Athanasius to convince Julius and other church leaders in the west, that Hebrews was indeed authentic, as the churches in the east had always held. None of this sounds infallible to me.

Why do you keep calling the early church the CC?

I can’t tell if you are being obstinate or just having difficulty with the subject.

Brian,
Im having difficulty understanding how the canon process historically diminishes the importance of the Church as you seem to imply (correct me if im misunderstanding you) instead of showing how important the role the Church played was. Whether the Church made an infallible decision on the canon seems to be an issue of faith. To my understanding the early Church went through development and the Gospels are based on the tradition of that early Church. That later development of that Church occurred in no way negates the fact that there was historical succession and it was the same Church (Catholic vs. Gnostic or some other). What do you mean by claiming the infallible Word of God was handed down by the Apostles? How do you differentiate what is the “infallible or inerrant Word of God” or just another ancient Christian writing?

 

[wmscott]

It was.

That is what the Bible calls the Church in Acts 9:31.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?pictureid=7471&albumid=1087&dl=1286162638&thumb=1

So true And as early as AD 110, funny how facts seem to elude some folks.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with **the Church **without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Catholic. Approved by the Pope. What inconsistency?

You just pointed out that the Eastern Catholic churches have 3rd Maccabees in their biblical canon. Roman Catholics do not have 3rd Maccabees in their canon. This is a difference between the canons. Thus, for the OP to be true, it would seem that the Holy Spirit would have to be saying one thing in Rome and another thing in Constantinople.

 

[jlhargus]

Patrick,
Here is where I think you are dead wrong

The Apostles and their initial flock could not have been Catholic because they did not believe in the fulness of the Trinity as it came to be defined in Nicea, ergo, like LDS they could be Christian but CERTAINLY NOT Catholic

JL: According to the scriptures the apostles certainly did believe in the fulness of the Trinity, they may not have used the term TRINITY. Yet they believed just a the Catholic Church does today. They believed in ONE GOD. They believed the Father was God, Phil1:3 Grace to you, and peace, from GOD OUR FATHER and the Lord Jesus Christ. They believed in God the Son, Jn1.1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD. They believed the Holy Spirit was God, Acts5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to LIE TO THE HOLY GHOST, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not LIED unto men, but UNTO GOD.

The apostles didn’t believe in three Gods, they believed in ONE GOD and baptized in His name Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They certainly didn’t believe, as Mormon’s teach, as we are,God the Father was, what God the Father is, WE can be. No man will EVER be God, but God did become man.

 

[Todd520]

The apostles didn’t believe in three Gods, they believed in ONE GOD and baptized in His name Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They certainly didn’t believe, as Mormon’s teach, as we are,God the Father was, what God the Father is, WE can be. No man will EVER be God, but God did become man.

Sorry but your statement isn’t supported by actual scripture or the writing of the very early church fathers.

 

[JonNC]

Sure, if you stop defining “Catholic” as “West.”

I’m not defining the Catholic Church as the west, except in terms of what Nicea determined the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is.

So, to make it a little more clear, please show me a chart where the canon of scripture is the same amongst the various patriarchates, including that of Rome.

Jon

 

[Brian_Culliton]

Brian,
Im having difficulty understanding how the canon process historically diminishes the importance of the Church as you seem to imply (correct me if im misunderstanding you) instead of showing how important the role the Church played was.

The fact that the canon developed over time, and the way in which it developed, does not diminish the church in any way, but it does refute the idea that the church came together in the late fourth century and infallibly decided which books should be included.

I think what Catholics who make this claim want is for Protestants to thank the Roman Catholic hierarchy for giving them their Bibles. And what I find most fascinating about that is they also claim the Holy Spirit guided the church in creating the canon, yet, incredibly, they are not asking us to thank God for our Bibles. That fact speaks far louder than any of their assertions.

Whether the Church made an infallible decision on the canon seems to be an issue of faith.

Yes, but faith in whom? And does it even matter? If the writings in the canon are bringing people to Christ, does it really matter if they were all genuine authentic apostolic writings? I think the vetting Eusebius described in his Ecclesiastical History was very thorough and can be reasonably trusted. I certainly don’t remember him or anyone else claiming their decisions to be infallible.

To my understanding the early Church went through development and the Gospels are based on the tradition of that early Church.

The Gospels are based on the tradition of the early church? Can you clarify what you mean?

That later development of that Church occurred in no way negates the fact that there was historical succession and it was the same Church (Catholic vs. Gnostic or some other).

How can something that developed and changed be the same? True there’s a succession, but what does that mean? If I ask a Catholic to substantiate apostolic validity of their “Sacred Traditions,” do you think they could do it? Is there any reasonable tractability back to the apostles for all those doctrines they are required to believe?

As an RCIA student, can you tell me what exactly is the base and pillar of the Roman Catholic Church?

What do you mean by claiming the infallible Word of God was handed down by the Apostles? How do you differentiate what is the “infallible or inerrant Word of God” or just another ancient Christian writing?

That is an excellent question! That is exactly the question I have been asking those who have been asserting that the church infallibly decided which books belong in the canon. If it was truly infallible, then it wasn’t the church that decided it.

I claimed that what the apostles taught concerning the Gospel of Christ was infallible teaching based on the authority given to them by Christ for that purpose. I didn’t say anything about differentiating between books. However, 22 of the 27 books can be traced to the 1st century church, which makes the probability of them being authentic apostolic works nearly certain.

 

[JonNC]

I think what Catholics who make this claim want is for Protestants to thank the Roman Catholic hierarchy for giving them their Bibles. And what I find most fascinating about that is they also claim the Holy Spirit guided the church in creating the canon, yet, incredibly, they are not asking us to thank God for our Bibles. That fact speaks far louder than any of their assertions.

Curiously, Luther did just that (gave credit and thanked the Catholic Church for preserving scripture through the centuries)!

Jon

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by Todd520
Patrick,
Here is where I think you are dead wrong

The Apostles and their initial flock could not have been Catholic because they did not believe in the fulness of the Trinity as it came to be defined in Nicea, ergo, like LDS they could be Christian but CERTAINLY NOT Catholic

JL: According to the scriptures the apostles certainly did believe in the fulness of the Trinity, they may not have used the term TRINITY. Yet they believed just a the Catholic Church does today. They believed in ONE GOD. They believed the Father was God, Phil1:3 Grace to you, and peace, from GOD OUR FATHER and the Lord Jesus Christ. They believed in God the Son, Jn1.1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD. They believed the Holy Spirit was God, Acts5:3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to LIE TO THE HOLY GHOST, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not LIED unto men, but UNTO GOD.

The apostles didn’t believe in three Gods, they believed in ONE GOD and baptized in His name Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They certainly didn’t believe, as Mormon’s teach, as we are,God the Father was, what God the Father is, WE can be. No man will EVER be God, but God did become man.

Sorry but your statement isn’t supported by actual scripture or the writing of the very early church fathers.

JL: So you don’t accept Phil 1:3, Jn 1:1 or Act 5:3-4 as actual scripture? Can you give me scripture saying God the Father was a man before he was God?

 

[joe370]

Hey Zooey, I agree with you. That was not my post.

[SIGN1]
Because that’s what it was.

[/SIGN1]

That’s what I learned in the Free Methodist Church, back in my childhood.
(We used to park the dinosaur-drawn chariot, lock the gates against the attacks by the Wild Poodles Who Roamed The Earth, and go on in).
The first time I heard someone claim that the early church was anything other than Catholic, I was an adult. You could have knocked me over with a feather.
Talk about revisionist history!! Which is the answer to OP’s question by the way: The reason some non-Catholics don’t believe that the Catholic Church complied the Bible is that they have fallen prey to revisionist history.

 

[joe370]

Gary, any open minded protestant should be able to see that the early church was the CC which is the present day CC. I doubt that any non-Catholic will respond to your post, but I hope they do. It became obvious to me after just a cursory investigation, as a former protestant.

St Ignatius …The second Bishop of Antioch, Syria, this disciple of the beloved Disciple John was consecrated Bishop around the year 69 by the Apostle Peter, the first Pope. A holy man who was deeply loved by the Christian faithful, he always made it his special care to defend “orthodoxy” (right teaching) and “orthopraxy” (right practice) among the early Christians.

In 107, during the reign of the brutal Emperor Trajan, this holy Bishop was wrongfully sentenced to death because he refused to renounce the Christian faith. He was taken under guard to Rome where he was to be brutally devoured by wild beasts in a public spectacle. During his journey, his travels took him through Asia Minor and Greece. He made good use of the time by writing seven letters of encouragement, instruction and inspiration to the Christians in those communities. We still have these letters as a great treasure of the Church today.

The content of the letters addressed the hierarchy and structure of the Church as well as the content of the orthodox Christian faith. It was Bishop Ignatius who first used the term “catholic” to describe the whole Church. These letters connect us to the early Church and the unbroken, clear teaching of the Apostles which was given to them directly by Jesus Christ. They also reveal the holiness of a man of God who became himself a living letter of Christ. The shedding his blood in the witness of holy martyrdom was the culmination of a life lived conformed to Jesus Christ. Ignatius sought to offer himself, in Christ, for the sake of the Church which he loved. His holy martyrdom occurred in the year 107.

 

[joe370]

Brian, you said:

The fact that the canon developed over time, and the way in which it developed, does not diminish the church in any way, but it does refute the idea that the church came together in the late fourth century and infallibly decided which books should be included.

How so???

Did the CC, in the 4th century, convoke and determine that the following books (which were questioned by some, in certain parts for 2 centuries, as to their apostolic authenticity) - were to be part of the canon, which became binding for all Christians:

Hebrews, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and James

Yes or no???

I think what Catholics who make this claim want is for Protestants to thank the Roman Catholic hierarchy for giving them their Bibles. And what I find most fascinating about that is they also claim the Holy Spirit guided the church in creating the canon, yet, incredibly, they are not asking us to thank God for our Bibles. That fact speaks far louder than any of their assertions.

You should definitely thank God for giving you your bible. If you don’t want to be thankful to the God for guiding the CC so that these fallible leaders could infallibly determine what should be in the bible and what should not be in the bible, well, that is your right.