The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[Tantum_ergo]

Semantics. The Royal College does not have the authority to pronounce whether it can ‘give us’ sunrise. . .but the Catholic Church does have the authority to pronounce what is and what is not Scripture.

Are you deliberately being obtuse or are you simply ignoring the fact that the Scripture which was in place though not completely in the lifetime of any apostle save St. John was existing ‘contemporaneously’ with the Catholic Church?

You harp on Jesus saying “Search the Scriptures” as if this was His great commission. I seem to recall that this was to preach the gospel. . .not 'preach the Scriptures of which I hereby give you the secret table of contents but you are not to assemble it until AD 380 or so. When I will suddenly, miraculously have my Robochristians come together chanting, “This goes in, that stays out, this goes in” and then you will look in the secret file of the “real” Christians (not the pesky Catholics), compare it with the table of contents I left, and then burn the secret table, bwaha ha. Because you must make it clear that I and I alone know what’s in Scripture, and if any people come together and pronounce it they are only reciting, just as if they were under hypnosis or in a medium-trance, what I tell them to."

The Catholic Church came **first, **Josiah. Christ founded a Church. The Church preached to the people, first orally, and then with the written word which they had the authority to declare WAS the written word.

Your own Martin Luther believed and taught this. Why don’t you?

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

I tolf you TE,
you might as well be talking to a brick wall

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Semantics. The Royal College does not have the authority to pronounce whether it can ‘give us’ sunrise. . .but the Catholic Church does have the authority to pronounce what is and what is not Scripture.

Well, so The Catholic Church alone claims for itself alone, but that is entirely moot to the issue of this thread. The question is not what has authority for what. The question is not whether most denominations have or have not pronounced the list of embraced biblical books. The question is this: Did The Catholic Church give us the Bible (Genesis - Revelation)?

You harp on Jesus saying “Search the Scriptures” as if this was His great commission.

No, I give that as just one of over 50 examples when Scriptures is specifically referenced. All before The Catholic Church even existed. By point being: How could The Catholic Church gave given Scripture befoer it even existed? And many centuries before it is claimed that it did so (in 397 AD)? What was Jesus referring to if Scripture didn’t already exist, and what relevance would His statement make if (as was claimed here) “no one would have a clue what is or is not Scripture unless The Catholic Church said so” (which it is claimed it did in 397 AD - about 325 years too late to offer any help to the audience Jesus spoke to)

The Catholic Church came **first, **Josiah. Christ founded a Church. The Church preached to the people, first orally, and then with the written word which they had the authority to declare WAS the written word.

So, The Catholic Church was before 1400 BC when The Ten Commandments were given? So it existed when Jesus said to “search the Scriptures?” I note that Jesus did NOT say, “search the list of books so declared by The Catholic Church in 397 - untill then, no one has a clue what is or is not Scripture.”

The question of this thread is not whether self may declare self to have authority to do anything. The question of this thread is whether The Catholic Church gave us the Bible (that’s all the contents from Genesis - Revelation). No one has offered a shred of anything to support the claim - so often stated by Catholics.

.

 

[Hisalone]

Not quite right. The books that was set at Carthage were the same that was dogmatized at Trent. The reason it was only dogmatized at Trent was because prior to Luther trying to come up with his own canon (the total audacity of the man) there was no need for it being dogmatized because everyone accepted it, It is only when something is questioned that it finally gets defined.

By the way, St Jerome died in 420, the council of Carthage was in 397, the canon was dogmatized as closed in 1546. So Jerome could be forgiven for not being aware of an event that happened 1200 years later after his death.

There is no greater intellectual dishonesty in discussing the Christian faith than Catholics attempting to defend their cannon.

The majority view is expressed by Cardinal Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan), the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the following background on his importance and influence:

Dominican cardinal, philosopher, theologian, and exegete; born 20 February, 1469 at Gaeta, Italy; died 9 August, 1534 at Rome…In 1501 he was made procurator general of his order and appointed to the chairs of philosophy and exegesis at the Sapienza. On the death of the master general, John Clérée, 1507, Cajetan was named vicar-general of the order, and the next year he was elected to the generalship. With foresight and ability, he devoted his energies to the promotion of religious discipline, emphasizing the study of sacred science as the chief means of attaining the end of the order…. About the fourth year of his generalship, Cajetan rendered important service to the Holy See by appearing before the Pseudo-Council of Pisa (1511), where he denounced the disobedience of the participating cardinals and bishops and overwhelmed them with his arguments. This was the occasion of his defence of the power and monarchical supremacy of the pope…On 1 July, 1517, Cajetan was created cardinal by Pope Leo X…He was later made Bishop of Gaeta…In theology Cajetan is justly ranked as one of the foremost defenders and exponents of the Thomistic school…To Clement VII he was the “lamp of the Church”, and everywhere in his career, as the theological light of Italy, he was heard with respect and pleasure by cardinals, universities, the clergy, nobility, and people.128

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense,

There were many that didnt get the memo.

 

[Hisalone]

Gregory the Great is a doctor of the Church and was bishop of Rome from A.D. 590-604. In his commentary on the book of Job he stated that the book of 1 Maccabees was not canonical:

With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46).131

This is significant, coming as it does from **a bishop of Rome, who denied canonical status to 1 Maccabees long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. **

 

[Hisalone]

Hugh of St. Cher (Hugo Cardinalis) (1200 - 1263)

A Dominican cardinal of the thirteenth century; b. at St-Cher, near Vienne, in Dauphiné (France), about 1200; d. at Orvieto (Italy), 19 March, 1263. He studied philosophy, theology, and jurisprudence in Paris, and next taught law in the same city. In 1225 he entered the Order of St. Dominic, and soon discharged therein the office of provincial, and next (1230) that of prior of the Dominican monastery in Paris. He became the confidant and adviser of several bishops, and the trusty envoy of Gregory IX to Constantinople (1233). In 1244 Innocent IV raised him to the cardinalate, and was greatly helped by him at the Council of Lyons (1245)…
Chiefly through Hugh’s exertions, the Dominicans were provided with a new Biblical ‘Correctorium’, which is still extant in manuscript, and which is still known as ‘Correctorium Hugonis’ and ‘Correctorium Praedicatorum’. His ‘Postillae in universa Biblia juxta quadruplicem sensum, litteralem, allegoricum, moralem, anagogicum’ has often been printed, and bears witness to his untiring industry as a compiler of explanations of the Sacred Text. He is justly regarded as the first author of a verbal ‘Concordance’ to Holy Writ, a work which became the model for all following publications of the kind.160

**In the Prologue to his commentary on the book of Joshua, Hugh gave a listing of the books of the Old Testament according to the Hebrew canon, indicating that the entirety of the Old Testament was comprised in the specific books listed. He also made mention of the Apocrypha but stated that they were not numbered in the canon. **The Church, he said, accepted them, but what he meant by this, since he followed the opinion of Jerome, was that the Church placed them in the secondary category of being useful for edification but not for the purposes of establishing doctrine.161

 

[Hisalone]

The Catholic Church is not a ‘denomination’. .

Sure it is.

 

[jmcrae]

The issue of this thread is whether it is historically documented that The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.

It is. The process of how it occurred has been outlined several times during this thread. Simply backtrack to see where.

Now, if you mean the tome I own, then I bought it. No one or no thing gave it to me. I paid $38.00 plus shipping/handling.

The tome you own, you found in a bookstore (or had shipped to you from a bookstore). It got to the bookstore from the bindery. It got to the bindery from the printers. The printers used metal plates to print it from. They used a chemical process to burn the plates from photographic negatives. The photographic negatives came from a large camera, called a “line camera”. The line camera burned the negatives by shining a light on the original English manuscript while exposing it to light-sensitive emulsion coated on to the negative material.

The original English manuscript was typed up by secretaries working from handwritten notes. The handwritten notes came from the translators. The translators were translating from a copy made by an unknown Catholic monk of the original Latin of St. Jerome’s original Bible, into English.

Generations of monks copied by hand Jerome’s original Latin Bible, which was put together by St. Jerome, when he was given the list of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew books to gather together from all of the libraries of the world - two letters of St. Paul from the library at Corinth; one letter of St. Paul from the library at Ephesus, along with the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation, and on to many other libraries., through the various Scriptoria of the Jews in Jerusalem, and finally the library at Alexandria.

He got the list of the books to find and translate from Pope Innocent I, when he promulgated it to the whole world in an infallible declaration, in 405 AD.

That’s where your Bible came from.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

Originally Posted by Tantum ergo forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The Catholic Church is not a ‘denomination’. .

Sure it is.

No it isn’t.

If a bunch of branches fall off of a tree, does that mean that the tree trunk then becomes just another branch too? No it does not.

Protestant denominations broke away from the Catholic Churtch. That does not mean that the Catholic Church then descends to their denominational status.

http://www.covchurch.org/uploads/UE/o2/UEo2k_ZbLQViOSf5RfdaVQ/family-tree.gif

 

[jen_fla]

No it isn’t.

If a bunch of branches fall off of a tree, does that mean that the tree trunk then becomes just another branch too? No it does not.

Protestant denominations broke away from the Catholic Churtch. That does not mean that the Catholic Church then descends to their denominational status.

http://www.covchurch.org/uploads/UE/o2/UEo2k_ZbLQViOSf5RfdaVQ/family-tree.gif

irish_Catholic, you are correct and gave a good verbal analogy, but then used a faulty diagram. did i miss something?

and just to reiterate for the benefit our of protestant friends, there is no such thing as the “Roman Catholic Church,” only the Catholic Church with many different rites. RCC is a derogatory term, but like another poster pointed out, intent is key and personally i think the majority of people do not mean to be offensive in using it. growing up, that is what i thought the Church was called myself.

…“Today in an era of widespread dissent in the Church, and of equally widespread confusion regarding what authentic Catholic identity is supposed to consist of, many loyal Catholics have recently taken to using the term Roman Catholic in order to affirm their understanding that the Catholic Church of the Sunday creed is the same Church that is united with the Vicar of Christ in Rome, the Pope. This understanding of theirs is correct, but such Catholics should nevertheless beware of using the term, not only because of its dubious origins in Anglican circles intending to suggest that there just might be some other Catholic Church around somewhere besides the Roman one: but also because it often still is used today to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is something other and lesser than the Catholic Church of the creed. It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary “Christian denomination”–not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.”…

i’ve posted this a few times, and it’s a good read about these terms.

Where the Church got Her name?

peace

 

[Javl]

Sure it is.

How do you define denomination?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

irish_Catholic, you are correct and gave a good verbal analogy, but then used a faulty diagram. did i miss something? …

So solly.

How about this one:

http://www.scborromeo.org/images/fig1.jpg

 

[Mosacked]

I already answered this question and you ignored the answer - probably because my answer shoots your premise down in flames.

As I said: Yes, God gave us the Bible. And just as god worked through men to write the scriptures, he also worked through men to canonize the Bible, and those men were the Bishops in union with Pope Damasus I.

You failed to answer mine. Using your logic…then, in like fashion we should give thanks to Judas for sending Jesus to the cruxifixion? Because without Judas, we wouldn’t have Christianity today!..

How outrageous can you get? Cos, that’s exactly the credit you’re looking for.

Otherwise, why are you so EAGER to get credit for ‘passing’ the Scripture WRITTEN BY GOD?..Are you saying without the Catholics, God’s Scripture would have been doomed???

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

You failed to answer mine. Using your logic…then, in like fashion we should give thanks to Judas for sending Jesus to the cruxifixion?..

Are you serioiusly trying to compare Judas’ disobedience with the canonization of the Bible?
You are way WAY out of line on that one

 

[Bill_Pick]

Sure it is.

No the CC is not

 

[Hisalone]

How do you define denomination?

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

From Websters

Main Entry: de·nom·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: \di-ˌnä-mə-ˈnā-shən
Function: noun
Date: 15th century
1 : an act of denominating
2 : a value or size of a series of values or sizes (as of money)
3 : name, designation; especially : a general name for a category
4 : a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices

 

[jen_fla]

So solly.

How about this one:

http://www.scborromeo.org/images/fig1.jpg

ha! now that’s what i’m talking about. http://www.pic4ever.com/images/banana_smiley_4.gif
thanks.

 

[ricko]

You failed to answer mine. Using your logic…then, in like fashion we should give thanks to Judas for sending Jesus to the cruxifixion? Because without Judas, we wouldn’t have Christianity today!..

How outrageous can you get? Cos, that’s exactly the credit you’re looking for.

Otherwise, why are you so EAGER to get credit for ‘passing’ the Scripture WRITTEN BY GOD?..Are you saying without the Catholics, God’s Scripture would have been doomed???

Well, yes. For one thing, almost all anti-Catholics say the same thing, that God wrote the bible. He may have written the Ten Commandments but no, He did not write the bible. The bible was written by MEN who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The NT was written by men of “the way” which later became know as the Catholic Church.

 

[Hiskid1973]

And the Orthodox church…After the schism…

 

[Anna_Scott]

Well, yes. For one thing, almost all anti-Catholics say the same thing, that God wrote the bible. He may have written the Ten Commandments but no, He did not write the bible. The bible was written by MEN who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. The NT was written by men of “the way” which later became know as the Catholic Church.

I’m Protestant, and I have no disagreements with what you have said.

Anna