The Catholic Church and the Bible

[gordonh]

Well of course there weren’t Bibles in every home until the printing press was invented. And if there have been most people couldn’t have read it. We are fortunate during this period the Catholic Church protected the Bible. Monks spent their lives painstakingly copying the Bible so there would be as many copies as possible . And of course the people got exposure to Scripture every week when they went to Mass.

I would hazard a guess that not only were the everyday people illiterate they would also not be able to understand Latin - without formal education where would they have learnt to speak Latin.

Don’t get me wrong I love to listen to and try and read Latin (my favourite Sung Eucharist music is written and sung in Latin) but I am not a fluent speaker of the language.

 

[DebChris]

I would hazard a guess that not only were the everyday people illiterate they would also not be able to understand Latin - without formal education where would they have learnt to speak Latin.

Don’t get me wrong I love to listen to and try and read Latin (my favourite Sung Eucharist music is written and sung in Latin) but I am not a fluent speaker of the language.

The reason the Mass was originally translated from Greek to Latin was because Latin was the language of the people, thus the term Vulgate, from vulgar or ordinary. Of course over time, as the Gospel spread to more and more people throughout the Roman Empire, Latin was maintained as the universal language of the Mass, and Scriptures. The Kyrie remained in its original Greek.
Those who were schooled were taught in Latin, and continued to learn Latin even in America into the nineteenth century. As a teacher who recently returned from the Middle East I think about this where although the spoken language is Arabic, schools are taught in English, today’s universal language.
You are correct. While in the beginning Greek may have been the language of the aristocracy and Latin the language of the people, over time there is a shift. Latin does become the language of the learned while people know primarily their own language. I certainly never learned any Latin. I studied other languages in school.

 

[benhur]

Well of course there weren’t Bibles in every home until the printing press was invented. And if there have been most people couldn’t have read it. We are fortunate during this period the Catholic Church protected the Bible. Monks spent their lives painstakingly copying the Bible so there would be as many copies as possible . And of course the people got exposure to Scripture every week when they went to Mass.

Hi e.

We are mostly talking about the attitude towards bible reading for lay people. Was it always encouraged as it is today ? Did most homes then have bibles shortly after the printing press ? And if so why, for everyone seems to suggest the masses were still illiterate ?

As to the rest of your post I agree somewhat, that the church received,and maintained and preserved, Holy Writ and and orally taught from it (Mass etc). But again the question is was there some “suppression” as part of the “protection” at any time.

Blessings

 

[DebChris]

Hi e.

We are mostly talking about the attitude towards bible reading for lay people. Was it always encouraged as it is today ? Did most homes then have bibles shortly after the printing press ? And if so why, for everyone seems to suggest the masses were still illiterate ?

As to the rest of your post I agree somewhat, that the church received,and maintained and preserved, Holy Writ and and orally taught from it (Mass etc). But again the question is was there some “suppression” as part of the “protection” at any time.

Blessings

Did you check the links provided in post #53?
The invention of the printing press in and of itself did not bring about universal literacy. Even in nineteenth century America there were many who were illiterate due to long work hours. Today’s almost universal literacy is unprecedented in history.
That does not mean that lay people did not know scripture, as the first article points out.
"People thought and spoke and wrote the thoughts and words and phrases of the Bible. And they did this quite naturally. "
While education may have been limited to the nobility who had the luxury of time, the peasantry were presented with morality plays as well as the Scriptural readings during Mass. They were surrounded with artwork depicting the Christian Faith. The deposit of Faith entrusted to the Apostles has been given to the Church and to ensure that the members of the Body of Christ are instructed in the Faith. While the laity may not have been reading the Bible, the Word continuously was proclaimed even as it continues to be proclaimed today.
It might even be noted that during a historical time that suppressed the education of women and girls, the Catholic Church has recognized and canonized as Saints women who educated young girls.

 

[benhur]

Did you check the links provided in post #53?
The invention of the printing press in and of itself did not bring about universal literacy. Even in nineteenth century America there were many who were illiterate due to long work hours. Today’s almost universal literacy is unprecedented in history.
That does not mean that lay people did not know scripture, as the first article points out.
"People thought and spoke and wrote the thoughts and words and phrases of the Bible. And they did this quite naturally. "
While education may have been limited to the nobility who had the luxury of time, the peasantry were presented with morality plays as well as the Scriptural readings during Mass. They were surrounded with artwork depicting the Christian Faith. The deposit of Faith entrusted to the Apostles has been given to the Church and to ensure that the members of the Body of Christ are instructed in the Faith. While the laity may not have been reading the Bible, the Word continuously was proclaimed even as it continues to be proclaimed today.
It might even be noted that during a historical time that suppressed the education of women and girls, the Catholic Church has recognized and canonized as Saints women who educated young girls.

Yes, did skim over articles which partly influenced my last post. Still, the question remains to look at any “suppression” over 2000 year history and any attitudes toward lay reading etc.

 

[benhur]

And the mass was always celebrated during the times that the church was supposedly keeping people away from Scripture .

 

[ComplineSanFran]

When reading church history, it is quite easy to find that Bibles were only for the priests and places of learning. To give access to the poor was unthinkable. Of course, the wealthy often had their Book of Hours, in which they prayed from the Scriptures, but that was not the same thing as having access to the Bible.

And once Bibles started appearing in the Vernacular, of course, it was even more important to keep Bibles out of the hands of the laity.

Here are some sources:

During the Inquisition:

‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ Canon 14, Council of Toulouse.

(Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)

From the Council of Tarragona - Canon 2. 1234

“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.”

And much later, as Bibles in the vernacular were common throughout Europe and the Americas in Protestant churches, Pope Leo XII wrote in the Encyclical Ubi Primum:

1. You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,[16] it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil![17]
2. To prevent this evil, Our predecessors published many constitutions. Most recently Pius VII wrote two briefs, one to Ignatius, Archbishop of Gniezno, the other to Stanislaus, Archbishop of Mohileu, quoting carefully and wisely many passages from the sacred writings and from the tradition to show how harmful to faith and morals this wretched undertaking is.
3. In virtue of Our apostolic office, We too exhort you to try every means of keeping your flock from those deadly pastures. Do everything possible to see that the faithful observe strictly the rules of our Congregation of the Index. Convince them that to allow holy Bibles in the ordinary language, wholesale and without distinction, would on account of human rashness cause more harm than good.

 

[DebChris]

“The Catholic Clergy are bound to read the Scriptures for nearly an hour every day; the Catholic Bishops of Great Britain declared in 1826, that authentic copies of Scripture were never discouraged by the Church.” defendingthebride.com/bb/

cathtruth.com/catholicbible/earlyhis.htm

John Wycliffe with his 1382 version of the Bible was not the first person to give English speaking people the Bible in their own tongue. We have copies of the work of Caedmon from the 7th century, and that of the Venerable Bede, Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert from the 8th (all in Saxon, the prevalent language at that time). From the 9th and 10th centuries come the translations of King Alfred the Great and Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury. Early English versions include that of Orm around 1150, the Salus Animae (1250), and the translations of William Shoreham, Richard Rolle (d.1349), and John Trevisa (c.1360).
Translations of the Bible, such as that of the Venerable Bede would be undertaken under obedience to the pope.
Other languages are also represented in the list of vernacular Catholic Bibles. We can find a translation of the Bible from 1290, written in French, a translation into Dutch (about 1270), and a translation into German (about 1350). Between 1466 and the onset of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, at least fourteen editions appeared in High German, and five in Low German. From 1450 to 1550, for example, there appeared (with express permission from Rome) more than 40 Italian editions or translations of the Bible and eighteen French editions, as well as others in Bohemian, Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian. Spain published editions in Spanish starting in 1478.

It is important to remember, that all of these vernacular Bibles were Catholic Bibles. The key issue for the Catholic Church was not translating the Bible into vernacular languages, but simply insuring that the translations were accurate translations.

 

[benhur]

“The Catholic Clergy are bound to read the Scriptures for nearly an hour every day; the Catholic Bishops of Great Britain declared in 1826, that authentic copies of Scripture were never discouraged by the Church.” defendingthebride.com/bb/

cathtruth.com/catholicbible/earlyhis.htm

John Wycliffe with his 1382 version of the Bible was not the first person to give English speaking people the Bible in their own tongue. We have copies of the work of Caedmon from the 7th century, and that of the Venerable Bede, Eadhelm, Guthlac, and Egbert from the 8th (all in Saxon, the prevalent language at that time). From the 9th and 10th centuries come the translations of King Alfred the Great and Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury. Early English versions include that of Orm around 1150, the Salus Animae (1250), and the translations of William Shoreham, Richard Rolle (d.1349), and John Trevisa (c.1360).
Translations of the Bible, such as that of the Venerable Bede would be undertaken under obedience to the pope.
Other languages are also represented in the list of vernacular Catholic Bibles. We can find a translation of the Bible from 1290, written in French, a translation into Dutch (about 1270), and a translation into German (about 1350). Between 1466 and the onset of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, at least fourteen editions appeared in High German, and five in Low German. From 1450 to 1550, for example, there appeared (with express permission from Rome) more than 40 Italian editions or translations of the Bible and eighteen French editions, as well as others in Bohemian, Belgian, Russian, Danish, Norwegian, Polish, and Hungarian. Spain published editions in Spanish starting in 1478.

It is important to remember, that all of these vernacular Bibles were Catholic Bibles. The key issue for the Catholic Church was not translating the Bible into vernacular languages, but simply insuring that the translations were accurate translations.

Thank you DC

We have to take into account Wycliffe trying to get permission for his bible and the troubles he and Tyndale had in creating the English bible, troubles for church authorities. Was not secrecy necessary ? Was there not consequences to their actions, even burning at the stake for one and the other posthumous burning ? Not sure if it was just punishment for their translations only but perhaps for other things also. Certainly some would claim suppression by the church on their efforts.Would not a better translation would have resulted if a more cordial and condoned effort been put forth on part of the church with these men ?

But yes, there were many authorized vernacular translations arising after this time. The question then would be what was the attitude of all having access to them etc.

blessings

 

[DebChris]

Thank you DC

We have to take into account Wycliffe trying to get permission for his bible and the troubles he and Tyndale had in creating the English bible, troubles for church authorities. Was not secrecy necessary ? Was there not consequences to their actions, even burning at the stake for one and the other posthumous burning ? Not sure if it was just punishment for their translations only but perhaps for other things also. Certainly some would claim suppression by the church on their efforts.Would not a better translation would have resulted if a more cordial and condoned effort been put forth on part of the church with these men ?

But yes, there were many authorized vernacular translations arising after this time. The question then would be what was the attitude of all having access to them etc.

blessings

It’s true that the members of the Catholic Church were reactive during the period of the Reformation as opposed to responsive.
Tynsdale and Wycliffe, as you have pointed out were in opposition to the Church. While their attempts at translation may have been scholarly there was the lack of submission to Church authority to be double checked for any errors and corrected.
One of the purposes of Vatican II was to correct this erroneous reactive approach of the past and reach out to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ through ecumenical efforts to restore the unity that Christ intended.
Again, it’s not the Bible itself that was rejected or suppressed. It was erroneous and unapproved translations including The King James version.
Unfortunately there have been misguided zealots in the past, both Catholic and non-Catholic. After the reign of Bloody Mary, it was members of the Catholic Church in England who went into hiding, including keeping their copies of the Douay-Rheims hidden from the Crown.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

When reading church history, it is quite easy to find that Bibles were only for the priests and places of learning. To give access to the poor was unthinkable. Baloney. Of course, the wealthy often had their Book of Hours, in which they prayed from the Scriptures, but that was not the same thing as having access to the Bible.

And once Bibles started appearing in the Vernacular, of course, it was even more important to keep Bibles out of the hands of the laity.

Here are some sources:

During the Inquisition:

‘We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old and the New Testament; unless anyone from the motives of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.’ Canon 14, Council of Toulouse.

(Edward Peters. Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Council of Toulouse, 1229, Canon 14, p 195.)

From the Council of Tarragona - Canon 2. 1234

“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned lest, be he a cleric or a layman, he be suspected until he is cleared of all suspicion.”

And much later, as Bibles in the vernacular were common throughout Europe and the Americas in Protestant churches, Pope Leo XII wrote in the Encyclical Ubi Primum:

1. You have noticed a society, commonly called the Bible society, boldly spreading throughout the whole world. Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,[16] it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or rather mistranslated, into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel) they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil![17]
2. . . od.

About 7 years one of our members commented on the “Council of Tarragona”. See below:

Quote:
The Council of Tarragona of 1234, in its second canon, ruled that:

“No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days, so that they may be burned…”- The Church Council of Tarragona 1234 AD; 2nd Cannon - Source : D. Lortsch, Historie de la Bible en France, 1910, p.14.
There was no Council of Tarragona in 1234. There was a provincial council in 1242 to deal with the details of the Inquisition. Presuming the author simply got the year wrong, I do know the history of this area and time in a general way. Muslim Moors, who had recently been ejected from this region, had produced doctored versions of the Bible, much like the Albgensians had done in France. This was done to support the view that it was Ishmael, not Issac, who Abraham blessed, that Jesus was not crucified and that another even greater prophet would follow Jesus. Many many copies of these false scriptures had been spread throughout the land during the Moorish occupation of Spain.

From New Advent:
In 1242 a provincial council was convoked at Tarragona to regulate the procedure of the Inquisition and canonical penances. In 1312 a provincial council was assembled in the Corpus Christi Chapel of the cathedral cloister, to pass sentence on the Templars, whom it declared innocent.

As for your final one, note the bolded: Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,[16] it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or** rather mistranslated,** into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by** a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel)** they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil![17

If somebody in your congregation was handing out nicely bound leatherette books which said “holy bible” on them, and yet contained distortions, omitting words, sentences, or whole paragraphs, changing the words of Jesus completely, etc., would you accept those as true bibles? Would you allow them to be presented as equivalent to the KJV or whatever accepted Bible translations you had? Would you allow what they said to be taught as ‘gospel truth’ to your children? Or would you stand up and say, “That may have some of the Bible passages in it that I know are true, but there are other things in there that are false. This book cannot be called a true Bible”?

 

[DebChris]

About 7 years one of our members commented on the “Council of Tarragona”. See below:

From New Advent:
In 1242 a provincial council was convoked at Tarragona to regulate the procedure of the Inquisition and canonical penances. In 1312 a provincial council was assembled in the Corpus Christi Chapel of the cathedral cloister, to pass sentence on the Templars, whom it declared innocent.

As for your final one, note the bolded: Rejecting the traditions of the holy Fathers and infringing the well-known decree of the Council of Trent,[16] it works by every means to have the holy Bible translated, or** rather mistranslated,** into the ordinary languages of every nation. There are good reasons for fear that (as has already happened in some of their commentaries and in other respects by** a distorted interpretation of Christ’s gospel)** they will produce a gospel of men, or what is worse, a gospel of the devil![17

If somebody in your congregation was handing out nicely bound leatherette books which said “holy bible” on them, and yet contained distortions, omitting words, sentences, or whole paragraphs, changing the words of Jesus completely, etc., would you accept those as true bibles? Would you allow them to be presented as equivalent to the KJV or whatever accepted Bible translations you had? Would you allow what they said to be taught as ‘gospel truth’ to your children? Or would you stand up and say, “That may have some of the Bible passages in it that I know are true, but there are other things in there that are false. This book cannot be called a true Bible”?

I am hoping my comments will only add to the discussion and not draw it off track.
I have in fact met several non-Catholics who accept as authoritative only the King James Version of the Bible. Yet we know that language changes over time and there are more accurate translations available in modern English which are easier to read.
In 1970, The Catholic Church approved the New American translation and it is the primary source for liturgical celebrations in North America.
Of course when I am discussing scripture with a non-Catholic it makes things simpler when we use a translation with which we are both familiar. Many churches, including the Catholic Church accept the Revised Standard Version as a legitimate translation. If I were to visit a non-Catholic church that is the one that I would carry with me. It’s was also the primary translation used for Catholic liturgical services while I was overseas.

St. Paul tells us if anybody should preach a gospel different than that which the Apostles taught, then we should not listen to them. There is an example given early in this thread of how the Bible has in the past been both intentionally and unintentionally mistranslated.

 

[benhur]

While their attempts at translation may have been scholarly there was the* lack of submission *to Church authority to be double checked for any errors and corrected.

Thanks but I am not sure that is exactly how it went. I think the church was more reactionary than that. Many see the submission much more important than any accuracy, hence viewed as “suppression”. Also, if they were scholarly (and they were) why were they not allowed to translate from the beginning ? Was there indeed not a passion in the Church as there was in these men to make the bible even* more* accessible (key word “more”) ?

One of the purposes of Vatican II was to correct this erroneous reactive approach of the past and reach out to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ through ecumenical efforts to restore the unity that Christ intended.

Very good of folks to say.

Again, it’s not the Bible itself that was rejected or suppressed. It was erroneous and unapproved translations including The King James version.

Again, a bit simplistic and customary answer. I think others of strong heart have gone deeper and admitted more about past attitudes of placing bibles in the hands of lay people.

Unfortunately there have been misguided zealots in the past, both Catholic and non-Catholic.

Yes, and the more we follow Christ first and foremost the freer we are to look at ourselves and our congregations, the good, bad and ugly of it. But even this must be graced. Kind of like “let every man be called a liar in that only God is true”.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Great answers, shows the CC did not suppress the Bible.
I remember one story I heard about how Martin Luther was searching in a Church library and found a book he had never read before—the Bible. A story I learned later to be false. But this is the type of thing that is being taught in IFB churches.

Never hesitate to ask questions and for evidence.

 

[steve_b]

And its first monk said the bible had surpassing authority and was “easy to read and available to all men”.(Confessions)

May I suggest,

That’s not properly referenced, so it can’t be taken as a quote.

Here’s a proper quote from Augustine, properly referenced

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I but consent?” *Augustine *Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental ch 4 para 5, & ch 5 para 6 " (A.D. 397).

Here’s another statement that is usually made into a quote on the internet, from Augustine.

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” Saint Augustine

That’s a paraphrase, not a quote, nor is it a proper reference. All it shows is that people on the internet, copy error over and over again without checking things for accuracy.

Here is the proper quote properly referenced

“For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel” Against Faustus, Book 17, 3,

I’m doing this only because, If you wanted to verify my answer for accuracy, you could go directly to Augustine’s text where the quote came from because I referenced it properly.

 

[benhur]

May I suggest,

That’s not properly referenced, so it can’t be taken as a quote.

Here’s a proper quote from Augustine, properly referenced

“For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty…The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate… For my part, I should not believe the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manicheus, how can I but consent?” *Augustine *Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental ch 4 para 5, & ch 5 para 6 " (A.D. 397).

Here’s another statement that is usually made into a quote on the internet, from Augustine.

If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” Saint Augustine

That’s a paraphrase, not a quote, nor is it a proper reference. All it shows is that people on the internet, copy error over and over again without checking things for accuracy.

Here is the proper quote properly referenced

“For to believe what you please, and not to believe what you please, is to believe yourselves, and not the gospel” Against Faustus, Book 17, 3,

I’m doing this only because, If you wanted to verify my answer for accuracy, you could go directly to Augustine’s text where the quote came from because I referenced it properly.

Hi Steve .

Yes, further referencing is better, and sometimes if book is not in front of me it is not detailed. But all one has to do is ask. Confessions, Book 6 ch.5 “The Authority of Scriptures” pg 140 doubleday image book paperback1960

“To me, the authority seemed all the more venerable and worthy of inviolable faith, because they were easy for everyone to read and yet safeguarded the dignity of their hidden truth within a deeper meaning, by words completely clear and by a lowly style of speech making itself accessible to all men and drawing the attention to those who are not light of heart…Therefore since we are to weak to find the truth by pure reason, and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ, I now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture, unless you wished both through it you believed in and through it you be sought”

But you are right the understanding is accessible to all men, not the book itself. Yet it is understood the book is to be through out the whole world(obviously with the Catholic church)

So thank you , I will be more careful with the “accessible” part in the future. My apologies

Blessings

PS. I understand Augustine was quite Catholic, and balanced the authority not just of scripture but of the Church, even the "preacher, even of Christ thru the HS teaching etc etc, at least as expressed in “Confessions”.

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve .

Yes, further referencing is better, and sometimes if book is not in front of me it is not detailed. But all one has to do is ask. Confessions, Book 6 ch.5 “The Authority of Scriptures” pg 140 doubleday image book paperback1960

“To me, the authority seemed all the more venerable and worthy of inviolable faith, because they were easy for everyone to read and yet safeguarded the dignity of their hidden truth within a deeper meaning, by words completely clear and by a lowly style of speech making itself accessible to all men and drawing the attention to those who are not light of heart…Therefore since we are to weak to find the truth by pure reason, and for that cause we needed the authority of Holy Writ, I now began to believe that in no wise would you have given such surpassing authority throughout the whole world to that Scripture, unless you wished both through it you believed in and through it you be sought”

But you are right the understanding is accessible to all men, not the book itself. Yet it is understood the book is to be through out the whole world(obviously with the Catholic church)

So thank you , I will be more careful with the “accessible” part in the future. My apologies

Blessings

PS. I understand Augustine was quite Catholic, and balanced the authority not just of scripture but of the Church, even the "preacher, even of Christ thru the HS teaching etc etc, at least as expressed in “Confessions”.

And Hi back benhur :tiphat:
Thanks for providing the context and reference to Augustines confessions, from your previous post.

Just a few thoughts

Yes, Augustine being a Saint, Bishop and Doctor of the Catholic Church, makes him “quite” Catholic

Re: Authority to Augustine,

Yes, Augustine points to two authorities, which is why I posted #75

1. • The Catholic Church
   • Scripture.
   As an aside,
   
   Re: the bible & the Catholic Church, (topic of the thread),
   
   before a single word was penned of the NT scriptures, The Catholic Church was already there. I say that because the apostles and writers of the NT were already in the Church they were writing to and for. That’s also why the Catholic Church then is considered the mother, not the daughter, of the NT scriptures. IOW, the scriptures didn’t produce the Church the Church produced the scriptures. And that Church is the Catholic Church #34. And since these NT writings were written to specific audiences in the Church in different locations, there wouldn’t be a bible until all the writings were collected and deemed scripture. That didn’t happen until 382 at the council of Rome. Ergo, without a final canon of scripture, OT and NT, their was no bible, ergo the Early Church before Jerome translated and wrote the first bible, there was no bible to follow.
   
   Pope Damasus I, in 382 Council of Rome, named specifically each OT and NT book #726 . Before that time there was no official (27 book NT) canon, and depending on which Jew one speaks of, the OT had 2 lists. Jews who didn’t follow Jesus had their canon (39 books), Jews who followed the Septuagint, had their list of books (46 books).
   
   This is why the Septuagint is correct #16
   
   Historically then,
   • the council of Rome (382), settled the canon (OT 46 books + NT 27 books = 73 books) & the councils of Hippo & Carthage (397), Florence (1445), Trent (1545), all validated the same 73 book canon, and that hasn’t changed.
   • Jerome took the canon decreed by Damasus, and translated the first bible (Vulgate). Before that there was no “bible”.
   As an aside Augustine and Jerome were friends.
   
   Blessings in return

 

[benhur]

And Hi back benhur :tiphat:
Thanks for providing the context and reference to Augustines confessions, from your previous post.

Just a few thoughts

Yes, Augustine being a Saint, Bishop and Doctor of the Catholic Church, makes him “quite” Catholic

Re: Authority to Augustine,

Yes, Augustine points to two authorities, which is why I posted #75

1. • The Catholic Church
   • Scripture.
   As an aside,
   
   Re: the bible & the Catholic Church, (topic of the thread),
   
   before a single word was penned of the NT scriptures, The Catholic Church was already there. I say that because the apostles and writers of the NT were already in the Church they were writing to and for. That’s also why the Catholic Church then is considered the mother, not the daughter, of the NT scriptures. IOW, the scriptures didn’t produce the Church the Church produced the scriptures. And that Church is the Catholic Church #34. And since these NT writings were written to specific audiences in the Church in different locations, there wouldn’t be a bible until all the writings were collected and deemed scripture. That didn’t happen until 382 at the council of Rome. Ergo, without a final canon of scripture, OT and NT, their was no bible, ergo the Early Church before Jerome translated and wrote the first bible, there was no bible to follow.
   
   Pope Damasus I, in 382 Council of Rome, named specifically each OT and NT book #726 . Before that time there was no official (27 book NT) canon, and depending on which Jew one speaks of, the OT had 2 lists. Jews who didn’t follow Jesus had their canon (39 books), Jews who followed the Septuagint, had their list of books (46 books).
   
   This is why the Septuagint is correct #16
   
   Historically then,
   • the council of Rome (382), settled the canon (OT 46 books + NT 27 books = 73 books) & the councils of Hippo & Carthage (397), Florence (1445), Trent (1545), all validated the same 73 book canon, and that hasn’t changed.
   • Jerome took the canon decreed by Damasus, and translated the first bible (Vulgate). Before that there was no “bible”.
   As an aside Augustine and Jerome were friends.
   
   Blessings in return

1. 
   Hi Steve
   
   While religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc.) may put forth her own "writings’’, there is no doubt as to their intent being for strict adherence to, either by here its members, or magisterium or councils etc…
   
   Also there is a difference between the origination and receiving of Holy Writ and their compilation as in a "bible’’. Both are authoritative to whom so ever will. So when the Galatians received a letter from Paul, it was received as God breathed and authoritative. But yes, it took some time for them to receive the Corinth letters or James as such.
   
   As to first bible it is believed to happen before any council. I understand that Constantine had Eusebius make bibles around 325. Some say the Vatican may have one of these originals. Even earlier than this patristic writings refer to 27 books as scripture. But yes councils helped, reaffirmed what was almost universal tradition already. (A few books were always questioned in some geographic parts of Christendom).
   
   And yes the Church received, delivered, maintained and copied and translated, codified/canonized scripture. However, it is still a valid discussion as to what the attitude and mode of operandi was towards those ends through out the past 2000 years.
   
   Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi Steve

While religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc.) may put forth her own "writings’’, there is no doubt as to their intent being for strict adherence to, either by here its members, or magisterium or councils etc…

True
bh:

Also there is a difference between the origination and receiving of Holy Writ and their compilation as in a "bible’’. Both are authoritative to whom so ever will. So when the Galatians received a letter from Paul, it was received as God breathed and authoritative. But yes, it took some time for them to receive the Corinth letters or James as such.

Because there was

• no stenographer writing down every single word as it was spoken,
• and there was no copy machine or printing press to make copies on the spot,
• and no one said the moment Paul’s letters were written, that they were automatically scripture,
• and there were lots of letters floating around, i.e. 100’s of writings.

there was no bible until all those writings the Church deemed scripture, were collectecd and canonized.
bh:

As to first bible it is believed to happen before any council. I understand that Constantine had Eusebius make bibles around 325.

I say this only to get you to anticipate the question I’m naturally going to ask.

For example, based on what you said, you know I’m going to ask you

Believed by whom? Do you have the reference properly referenced? …see what I mean? You knew that question was coming.

I’ve posted this previously as an internal link in #34 to show there were previous canons.

The Muratorian canon, considered written in ~180 earlychristianwritings.com/text/muratorian.html.

note: 27 books are not specifically listed.

But here’s an important point, notice at the end of the canon, who is necessary for it’s approval? It’s The Catholic Church

From vs 3&4

“these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey.
4. The Epistle of Jude, indeed,37 and two belonging to the above-named John-or bearing the name of John-are reckoned among the Catholic epistles. And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive also the Apocalypse of John and that of Peter, though some amongst us will not have this latter read in the Church. The Pastor, moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Plus sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public38 in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time”

Note: the book of Wisdom? That’s an OT book. That book is NOT in the protestant version of the bible. Luther removed that book as he did 6 other books from the protestant bible. And it’s that way still today. Don’t take my word for it. Look at your own bible you have.

It’s scripture. Not apocryphal.
bh:

Some say the Vatican may have one of these originals.

Again as a suggestion, don’t say “some say” without a specific reference. And by specific reference I mean [name of author, their work, and where in their work] does the view appear

Just a suggestion
bh:

Even earlier than this patristic writings refer to 27 books as scripture. But yes councils helped, reaffirmed what was almost universal tradition already. (A few books were always questioned in some geographic parts of Christendom).

Again as a suggestion, evidence evidence evidence. What patristic writings are you talking about? Who said it? In what work did they they say it in?

You know those questions are coming…right?
bh:

And yes the Church received, delivered, maintained and copied and translated, codified/canonized scripture.

I said

• the NT scriptures were written in by for the Catholic Church.

You said

• the Church received, delivered, maintained and copied and translated, codified/canonized scripture

I would ask you, name one writer of NT scripture who was not ALSO “in” the Church?
bh:

However, it is still a valid discussion as to what the attitude and mode of operandi was towards those ends through out the past 2000 years.

Blessings

I bring up the points I did, because “the Church” being spoken of from the beginning, is the Catholic Church. #34 and the evidence is in the internal links. Please open them

Blessings in return

 

[IGotQuestions]

Thanks for your answers everyone!