The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[scottirey]

Well all stop here and say a Pray for this person,he is in need of HELP

Bill, I don’t always agree with what you write or how you write it but in this we are in total agreement.

Hisalone, you are in in my prayers.

 

[jmcrae]

Dont waste your time. Your documents do not say what you say they do.

Have you ever actually read them? Come on - that is not your local independent non-denominational church they are writing to, there!

Nor are they written at the time of the Apostles.

80 AD isn’t the time of the Apostles?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Bill, I don’t always agree with what you write or how you write it but in this we are in total agreement.

Hisalone, you are in in my prayers.

Well Thank you That is very nice of you What do you not like about the writing,Grammar or selling,LOL

 

[mark_a]

The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

The Catholic Church wins by default. There was no one else that could have given us the bible.

 

[peary]

…unless you also want to say that the Catholic church gave us the inquisition and the priest sex abuse scandals.

The point being that you can not take credit for the positive while at the same time pass the buck on the negative. A little consistency on this please.

So, then, the Bible ‘fell’ out of the sky into your lap, or what?
Did someone, similar to Mohammed, ‘dictate’ all the books of the Bible?
The Church ‘gave’ us the Inquisition? (which one? there were several)
The Church ‘gave’ us the priest abuse scandals? Do you mean that the Church directed Her priests to sexually harm children?
Is this what you are saying?

 

[Hiskid1973]

The Catholic Church wins by default. There was no one else that could have given us the bible.

I think a lot agree it was the catholic church as in all the sees and not just your roman see…

 

[jmcrae]

I think a lot agree it was the catholic church as in all the sees and not just your roman see…

All of the sees were in full communion with Rome, and all of them recognized the Bishop of Rome as their leader. Remember, this was before the East-West split.

 

[mark_a]

I think a lot agree it was the catholic church as in all the sees and not just your roman see…

Correct. All Roman Catholics are Catholic, but not all Catholics are Roman Rite. Sorry for seeming presumtuous to non-Catholics.

 

[Hiskid1973]

All of the sees were in full communion with Rome, and all of them recognized the Bishop of Rome as their leader. Remember, this was before the East-West split.

Yes I know , but the way some say it that it all came from your roman catholic see now …There’s a bit of differance form what the Rome see teaches from back when they were together…I don’t deny there were bishop of bishops BUT they were still together and accountable to each other. Just like when your pope Peter was rebuked…Think of what was said when they were arguing I’m of Paul, I’m of Appolos…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, I’m really curious.

If Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc. were not Catholic Christians what were they?

Catholic - universal.

As far as the “Roman” part goes, that “addition” was TACKED ON to us by Protestants. While the terminology is used (even by us, often because we live or work in countries that are Protestant and have applied the terminology and dinned it into everyone’s head) and partly because it’s in charity to our Protestant brothers who have grown accustomed to it and wouldn’t recognize us if we DIDN’T call ourselves Roman, it is NOT the ‘official’ name of the Church.

The official name (please go to the Vatican web site if you don’t believe me) is “The Catholic Church”.

Now.
Please tell me the name of the other “real” Church which was founded by Christ, had the apostles as its members, and spread the Christian faith through the world.

We know that the greek “catholicos” was used for Christians as early as AD 100. The Christian church was known as “The Catholic Church”. There was no ‘other’ Church which was known JUST as “Christian”; there were not two ‘dueling churches’, etc.

So, to argue that Luke and John and Mark and Paul. etc. weren’t ‘Roman Catholics’ is specious. Quite frankly, we Catholics today are not ROMAN Catholics EITHER, thank you very much. We are Catholics of the Latin Rite, and the name “roman” was applied to us as an epithet by Protestants.

You know, it’s like calling us “Klingons” and then saying, “and Luke and Paul weren’t Klingons”. Well duh. They weren’t. . .but we aren’t either! What a strawman.

The fact that some Protestants ‘added on’ Roman to the title of the Catholic Church and then screech that the early Christians “weren’t Roman” is BOGUS. The worst kind of twisting and convolution and based on a terminology that PROTESTANTS bestowed on CATHOLICS to boot!

 

[jmcrae]

Yes I know , but the way some say it that it all came from your roman catholic see now .

The actual infallible declaration of the canon of the 27 books of the New Testament came from the Pope (Bishop of Rome), yes. I don’t think anyone is suggesting a particular location for the 8 writers of the New Testament - but they were all certainly in full communion with St. Peter or with his successor, at the time that they were writing their books and letters.

There’s a bit of difference form what the Rome see teaches from back when they were together…I don’t deny there were bishop of bishops BUT they were still together and accountable to each other. Just like when your pope Peter was rebuked…

They’re still accountable to each other today - for example, once every five years, my Bishop goes to Rome for a meeting with the Pope, called an “ad limina” where they talk about what’s going on in the Diocese of Calgary. They work together - it’s not like the Pope is his “boss” but it’s a team effort between all of them to do what is best for the people. The Pope can be and has been rebuked - do you know the story of St. Catherine of Sienna? She went to Avignon to rebuke the Pope, and he heard her, and did as she told him to do, and it restored the unity of the Church.

Think of what was said when they were arguing I’m of Paul, I’m of Appolos.

This was an example of people thinking that the Sacrament of Baptism was dependent on the holiness of the ministers. St. Paul was telling them that it isn’t.

 

[scottirey]

Well Thank you That is very nice of you What do you not like about the writing,Grammar or selling,LOL

LOL Sometimes just a little more blunt than I would be. Not a complaint, just an observation. Having been a forum moderator I know that peoples writing styles are rarely reflective of how they are in person.

God Bless

Scott Irey

 

[Hiskid1973]

Here’s the thing…It wasn’t to long into the church’s time they were first called christian’s…They didn’t go by Jerusalem christians or Corinth christians they were christians…Some where someone tacked on the church “catholic” as the whole bunch ie all the sees…There was no Roman version till Paul got there…They weren’t “Roman” til a certain point of time…Then is was a see along with the rest of the sees…They weren’t all “roman” of what was the “catholic” church…Peter wasn’t even from the Rome see…Split came and Rome went it way from the rest of the sees…What I get a kick out of is the comment that the Roman Catholic church was started in 33 ad…There weren’t even any “Rome” christains yet…The church might have been called “catholic” but it was ALL the sees in one accord…Ask an Orthodox…

 

[Bill_Pick]

So, then, the Bible ‘fell’ out of the sky into your lap, or what?
Did someone, similar to Mohammed, ‘dictate’ all the books of the Bible?
The Church ‘gave’ us the Inquisition? (which one? there were several)
The Church ‘gave’ us the priest abuse scandals? Do you mean that the Church directed Her priests to sexually harm children?
Is this what you are saying?

Shame on Nottosmart you still have sex on your mind,Let get back on thread we all agree the Bible fell out of the sky,does that woard for you
Happy Turkey day

 

[jmcrae]

Here’s the thing…It wasn’t to long into the church’s time they were first called christian’s…They didn’t go by Jerusalem christians or Corinth christians they were christians…Some where someone tacked on the church “catholic” as the whole bunch ie all the sees…There was no Roman version till Paul got there…They weren’t “Roman” til a certain point of time…Then is was a see along with the rest of the sees…They weren’t all “roman” of what was the “catholic” church…Peter wasn’t even from the Rome see…Split came and Rome went it way from the rest of the sees…What I get a kick out of is the comment that the Roman Catholic church was started in 33 ad…There weren’t even any “Rome” christains yet…The church might have been called “catholic” but it was ALL the sees in one accord…Ask an Orthodox…

Okay, I think what’s happening is that you’re hung up on the word “Roman.” It’s true that the Catholic Church (the same exact church that ended up in Rome when it got captured in 65 AD) started off in Jerusalem.

They remained in Jerusalem until they were captured and taken to Rome. At that time, because of the fact that St. Peter was the Pope, and also that he was the Bishop of Rome at the same time, when he died, his successor also took on both titles - Bishop of Rome, and Pope.

Now, at that time, he was not called the Pope; he was just called the Prime Bishop. Even so, he was the one to whom all the other Bishops came, to resolve their disputes and to find out what the universal norms of the Church were. That is to say, he was doing what Popes do.

The Church leadership remained in captivity in Rome for something close to 300 years, and by the time they were set free, there was really no place else for them to go - Jerusalem had been sacked, the Jews were thoroughly hostile to Christianity, and everything they had left behind there was already gone. So, they just stayed in Rome, and they have been there pretty much ever since, apart from a short time when the Pope lived in Avignon. Did he stop being the Pope just because he was living in Avingnon? Not at all. In fact, the Church leadership could have moved to Avingnon permanently, and it would not have affect their authority one little bit - no more than moving to Rome from Jerusalem caused the Early Church leaders to lose any of their authority.

You are right that all of the sees were united together, by means of all being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, who was the Prime Bishop, or Pope, and they remained united like that until the middle of the eleventh century, which was when the East-West schism took place.

 

[Hiskid1973]

The actual infallible declaration of the canon of the 27 books of the New Testament came from the Pope (Bishop of Rome), yes. I don’t think anyone is suggesting a particular location for the 8 writers of the New Testament - but they were all certainly in full communion with St. Peter or with his successor, at the time that they were writing their books and letters. Yes they were, but it wasn’t the Roman Catholic as it appears after the schism, I rather it be said the Roman Catholic was a part of the sees that put it together…Not the bible came “Just” from the Roman see as some say

They’re still accountable to each other today - for example, once every five years, my Bishop goes to Rome for a meeting with the Pope, called an “ad limina” where they talk about what’s going on in the Diocese of Calgary. They work together - it’s not like the Pope is his “boss” but it’s a team effort between all of them to do what is best for the people. The Pope can be and has been rebuked - do you know the story of St. Catherine of Sienna? She went to Avignon to rebuke the Pope, and he heard her, and did as she told him to do, and it restored the unity of the Church. Are you from the Orthodox church

This was an example of people thinking that the Sacrament of Baptism was dependent on the holiness of the ministers. St. Paul was telling them that it isn’t.

Yes it was division, squabbling even as the sees were together then…It’s all of Christ…

For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The Catholic Church was started in AD 33, though.
Thing is, as I said, many if not most Protestants refer to Catholics pretty much en masse as “roman”, “Roman Catholic”, and RCC.

And because a lot of us Catholics were brought up and taught by Protestants, that ‘usage’ got accepted by Catholics.

So you’ll find many Catholics who accept the terminology unquestioningly.

BUT the other part --and I think you’re off there --is that there wasn’t a ‘split’ per se of “Roman” and “Alexandrian” etc. etc. such that there were a bunch of “Catholics” in AD 200, say, in Alexandria, and another bunch of “Catholics” in Rome, and one group ‘split’ from the other. They were all Catholics.

However, the bishops had a leader. The first leader was Peter. And while he may (probably did) serve in perhaps Antioch, he did end up in Rome. Rome was the home of the enemy. It was the equivalent of having an English bishop in WW2 go set up his seat in Berlin. . .it was going into ‘occupied’ territory, enemy territory, code name “Babylon”.

But Jesus didn’t say, “preach the gospel, EXCEPT in Rome”. Or “set up where you will, but not Rome”. Going to Rome, bearding the most important political figure of the time (the Emperor) was in fact exactly what Jesus was calling on his leader (Peter) to do.

And Peter’s successor stayed there.

So there wasn’t a ‘split’ of Catholics. There was rather a great ‘mingling’ of Catholics. The fact that the leader of the Catholic world would wind up in the end not only overcoming the emperor but ruling in Christ’s name from the Emperor’s city is very appropriate. . .and it doesn’t mean that they did so by ‘supplanting’ other Catholics or splitting away from other Catholics.

 

[Hiskid1973]

You are right that all of the sees were united together, by means of all being in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, who was the Prime Bishop, or Pope, and they **remained united like **that until the middle of the eleventh century, which was when the East-West schism took place.

There we go, now were on the same page…I always have wondered why the prot split came from the RC side and not the Orthodox…It was like they were reaping something they sowed…I’m not trying to bad mouth your church , just an observation I made…

 

[Hiskid1973]

Not to keep arguing but there was a split of catholic’s…Catholics in Rome are separate from the catholics in the rest of the sees…

 

[jmcrae]

Yes they were, but it wasn’t the Roman Catholic as it appears after the schism, I rather it be said the Roman Catholic was a part of the sees that put it together…Not the bible came “Just” from the Roman see as some say

Yes it was - follow the line of the Bishops of Rome. It goes from Peter (who was in Jerusalem, when Christ appointed him) - Peter was captured and taken to Rome; when he died, Linus took his Offices; when Linus died, Cletus took his Offices; when Cletus died, Clement took his Offices, and so on down to the time of the Schism, where we see Pope Leo IX just before and during the Schism, who is followed by Pope Victor II, and you notice that the line actually never stops - it just keeps on going, but the Eastern churches in schism are no longer in communion with it. You see that they have split away, but the line still continues in Rome - still reaching back to St. Peter without any breaks - and remains unbroken even until now.