The Mass v. Protestant Services

[jmcrae]

I don’t think so - maybe you can show me how? It’s my understanding that catholics turn to the catechism - not directly to scripture for direction, is this not so? If the catechism is true to scripture, why have it at all? What would be the purpose? If you say because it adds teaching, you’re in conflict with the Bible, since it says do not add or take away from its pages.

It’s the Holy Tradition that must not be added to or subtracted from; not the Bible. The Bible didn’t exist yet, when the individual books of it were being written.

I think it’s because the chatechism interjects docrtines of men. You may argue that these actions of men are led by God, but that’s just a worldview you’ve developed, since this can’t be shown any other way than by faith, and again, that view goes against scripture.

Not at all since Scripture shows us that Peter was placed in charge of Christ’s Church when Jesus ascended into Heaven. (John 21:15-19) Which Church claims that Peter was its first leader after Christ? (Which one can demonstrate this using historical documents?)

If your faith is misplaced, then you’re in trouble.

True enough.

How do you determine if your faith is misplaced or not? What we often see is catholic tradition in opposition to the scriptures. It’s very existence is in oposition to the Bible because again, it expounds on scripture by interjecting tradition.

Yet, without the Tradition, we would not only not know that the Bible contains the inspired word of God, we also wouldn’t have any of the words of the Bible itself, which all began in the Oral Tradition, and were only began to be written down decades later. Before that, they were passed on through catechesis, stories and songs, but not as books that one could read.

In addition, the scriptures existed long before catholic tradition. They existed before catholic tradition even had a chance to get off the ground.

Catholic Tradition began in 30 AD. The first words of the New Testament weren’t penned until at least 50 AD - two decades later.

I’ve often heard catholics speak as if the catholic faith is the oldest religion, as if how old something is gives it validity. If so, why not be a Jew, or better yet, a pagan. Also, if you’re looking for where something “came from”, the old testament came from the Hebrew text - long before the catholic religion ever started.

You’re right that age, in and of itself, isn’t an indicator of Truth. However, the Catholic Church having the exact same Chief Shepherd and the exact same start date as the Church that Christ founded does (or should) give one pause.

It’s true that faith is important - but your faith should not work against reason. Isaiah 1:18 - God states “Come now, and let us reason together.” This is good advice - for everyone.

The Catholic faith is completely reasonable, and makes perfect logical sense.

 

[6YRSHOME]

The Bible disagress with you. It claims that scripture defines truth, not tradition. It claims that scripture is profitable for teaching, profits much, and rightly divides the word of God - not tradition. In addition, the scriptures existed long before catholic tradition. They existed before catholic tradition even had a chance to get off the ground.

Where in the Bible does it say that it is the only source of truth?
What does the Bible say is the pillar and foundation of truth?

 

[Montgomeryatty]

It’s my understanding that catholics turn to the catechism - not directly to scripture for direction, is this not so? If the catechism is true to scripture, why have it at all? What would be the purpose? If you say because it adds teaching, you’re in conflict with the Bible, since it says do not add or take away from its pages.

Because the Bible cannot simply be read and all of its doctrines and truths instantly and plainly detected. It must be interpreted. The question isn’t “what does the Bible say?” but “what does the Bible mean when it says [fill in the blank]”? A Catechism, which even Baptists (at least) had up until about 50 years ago, constitutes the Church’s (or another denomination’s) interpretation of Christian truths. In the case of the Catholic Church, the Catechism contains truths drawn from both the Bible and from Tradition.

What we often see is catholic tradition in opposition to the scriptures. It’s very existence is in oposition to the Bible because again, it expounds on scripture by interjecting tradition.

Catholics do expound on Scripture by, among other things, interjecting Tradition. As do Protestants. The only difference is that Protestants don’t have the introspection to see that their traditions are also extra-scriptural. The Sinner’s Prayer, for example. I’d say give or take a few words, the Sinner’s Prayer is repeated all around America at least, in a nearly identical “formula.” The underlying assumption is that that prayer exists, somewhere, in the Bible, even if one has never seen it. To my knowledge, it is not present.

The Bible … claims that scripture defines truth, not tradition. It claims that scripture is profitable for teaching, profits much, and rightly divides the word of God - not tradition. In addition, the scriptures existed long before catholic tradition. They existed before catholic tradition even had a chance to get off the ground.

Wrong-O! The Bible claims that all Scripture is useful, God-breathed, etc. Of primary importance, we must immediately put ourselves in the place of Paul at the time he wrote what came to be known as 2 Timothy. What was “Scripture” at that time? Was it just the OT, or perhaps some of the Gospels, maybe a few epistles, etc. Not everything which became the NT had been written at this time. So if you say Paul knew what works would become NT Scripture, you’re making things up without Biblical support to fit your viewpoint. If you say Paul regarded Scripture as something less than the corpus which ultimately became the Bible, yet you say that only “Scripture” can guide us, then you must identify what books Paul considered Scripture and treat all other books as NOT God-breathed.

Tradition rightly was the method by which the Church defined what precisely constituted Scripture. There were something like 60 works which were claimed by one person/group as constituting inspired Scripture. An authority had to sort through those works, determining what was truly inspired and what wasn’t. What is your conception of how that determination was made?

 

[ricmat]

I don’t think so - maybe you can show me how? It’s my understanding that catholics turn to the catechism - not directly to scripture for direction, is this not so? If the catechism is true to scripture, why have it at all? What would be the purpose? If you say because it adds teaching, you’re in conflict with the Bible, since it says do not add or take away from its pages.

Have you actually SEEN a catechism? It is full of scriptural references.

The catechism provides a single inspired interpretation of Scripture, unlike the Protestants who have 33,000 different interpretations. Which is better?

Now, here you’re kidding right? I mean, you can’t be serious. The problem is exactly what you state - the catholic church tries to “define”. Not a problem - until the definitions it comes up with militate against the word of God.

I asked you where your bible came from, and assumed you knew the answer. Apparently you don’t. The Catholic Church, using tradition and the “keys of Peter” looked at all the thousands of different “scriptures” and yes - decided what was inspired or not. If Catholics hadn’t the power to do that, then you have no bible, period.

I’ve often heard catholics speak as if the catholic faith is the oldest religion, as if how old something is gives it validity. If so, why not be a Jew, or better yet, a pagan? Also, if you’re looking for where something “came from”, the old testament came from the Hebrew text - long before the catholic religion ever started.

I think you are hearing what you want to (mis-) hear. Catholicism is the original religion founded directly by Christ.

It’s true that faith is important - but your faith should not work against reason. Isaiah 1:18 - God states “Come now, and let us reason together.” This is good advice - for everyone. Don’t confuse faith with blind acceptance. There is not as much “mystery” in the Bible as the catholic church would have you believe.

Blind faith is a sin, as is total reliance on reason with no faith. Fides Et Ratio is an encyclical, readable, that you should read too.

There is more mystery in the bible than ANYONE would have you believe. Incidentally, mystery is not something that can not possibly be understood. In some cases it is something that can be understood only with the help of divine revelation.

 

[Spirithound]

First of all, we don’t “resacrifice” Christ. The Eucharist is part of His orginal once and for all sacrifice. It is represented at every mass by Christ through the presider.

6YH, the proper spelling is re-presented. Sorry to nitpick, but in this context it’s very important.

Notice above that the council stated that the Mass is a “sacrifice” that is truly propitiatory. It’s not just an symbolic “offering”.

So the mass is not a sacrifice then? If it is not a sacrifice, why is it referred to as the sacrifice of the mass? If it is a sacrifice, then it is resacrificing isn’t it? Because Christ already did it (past tense) once and for all, right?

So to clarify, the mass is not a sacrifice, but a representation of a sacrifice?

The Mass is a sacrifice. According to Old Testament protocol, a sacrifice consisted of two parts. The slaughter, and the offering. Jesus was slaughtered once, and is continually offered to the Father. So really, my earlier assertion that the Mass is a re-presentation is not totally accurate, but it is a sharing in the continual offering of the sacrifice. Remember, Jesus is infinite, so this is possible.

 

[6YRSHOME]

6YH, the proper spelling is re-presented. Sorry to nitpick, but in this context it’s very important.
QUOTE]

Ooops. Feel free to set me straight. I’m still rather new at this.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Other than the Euchurist or Communion which are the same to each of those who participate. The rest of the worshiping is similar.

We not just Catholics and Protestants but us as humans are all very different. Some people love the ballet, racing, sports, art, cooking etc, others hate it. Different regions of a country have different foods, sayings, attitudes, culture.

For example baseball. In a baseball team not all the members think, do or act the same BUT will still belong to the same team.

Not all baseball teams are the same but still play baseball.

Some teams practice lots with drills, some study strategy, others get great uniforms and some even, its only about the beer. But when gameday comes, they all still play baseball.

Each player will find a team that best suits their personality so they can play the game as best they can.

 

[allischalmers]

Oh really? Is this official Babtist teaching or your opinion? What is your source for this?

John 4:24 "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Yes it is a baptist teaching because Jesus said it and that is why

in heaven everyone is a Baptist
allischalmers

 

[HonConvert]

John 4:24 "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Yes it is a baptist teaching because Jesus said it and that is why

in heaven everyone is a Baptist
allischalmers

Jesus also said: “Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day” (John 6:54). Is this also a Baptist teaching?

God bless,
James

 

[Cat]

Kitty Chan, it’s a very sweet sentiment, but it isn’t true.

Church (the body of Christ) cannot be compared to art, sport, or nightlife.

Church is not what WE want, but what GOD wants. As we become more like Christ, we will want what God wants.

Church is the Body of Christ gathered to receive Jesus.

In Protestant churches, Christians receive Jesus in the Word of God (spoken, sung, preached, prayed, dramatized, meditated upon, etc.).

In Catholic churches, Christians also receive Jesus in the Word of God (spoken, sung, etc.), but also through the Eucharist.

I agree that it is indeed very pleasant to receive Jesus (Word and Eucharist) in surroundings that please my humanness. For me, it’s classical music, stained glass, and art. For others, it’s rock music, a gymnasium, and posters.

But these “human” trappings are not Church. Church is Christians together receiving Jesus, and then through the power of the Holy Spirit, taking Him into a lost world among un-believers.

 

[mepatri]

It’s the Holy Tradition that must not be added to or subtracted from; not the Bible. The Bible didn’t exist yet, when the individual books of it were being written.

Now you’re splitting hairs. The Bible is a compilation of 66 books, written by 40 authors, overa period of about 1500 years. The scriptures did exist (old testament) when Jesus was on earth. He refers to them often, and often asked why the Jewish leadership did not know them, or did not follow them.

Not at all since Scripture shows us that Peter was placed in charge of Christ’s Church when Jesus ascended into Heaven. (John 21:15-19) Which Church claims that Peter was its first leader after Christ? (Which one can demonstrate this using historical documents?)

The passage you refer to has been used by catholics for centuries - but it’s been misinerpreted, again taking a very simplistic view. If what you say is true, then why didn’t the Apostles take your view?

Have you actually SEEN a catechism? It is full of scriptural references.

The catechism provides a single inspired interpretation of Scripture, unlike the Protestants who have 33,000 different interpretations. Which is better?

I have seen it, and I’ve posted quotes out of it several times. I actually agree with most of it. I think most catholics either don’t read it, or they let the modern day church tell them what it says.

I asked you where your bible came from, and assumed you knew the answer. Apparently you don’t. The Catholic Church, using tradition and the “keys of Peter” looked at all the thousands of different “scriptures” and yes - decided what was inspired or not. If Catholics hadn’t the power to do that, then you have no bible, period.

Catholics have no special “power.” Where did you get this idea from? If catholics have a special power to interpret scripture that no one else has, then you must in turn claim that the Holy Spirit works in catholics alone - because the Bible says that the Holy Spirit communicates truth. Please show your scriptural reference for this. Self declaration of such a thing is meaningless. It’s just what Christ rebuked the Jewish leadership for. They even “sold” their special power to people to insure they went to heaven. Kind of sounds like catholic indulgences, doesn’t it?

One of the biggest problems I have with your religion is that it promotes self righteousness. By being a catholic, I can be better than a non-catholic, because that other person has no grace. God doesn’t favor the non-catholic as He does me, and unless that person becomes a catholic like me, I have determined that God will turn that person away. On the other had, buy virtue of my catholic faith alone, I will be saved. It’s a faith I have to “join” in order to get grace and the favor of God. If I don’t “join”, I can’t recieve God’s grace. After I do join, I’m required to follow numerous rules and regulations to maintain God’s favor. The Bible describes this as “bondage”, and it’s the same type of system Jesus rebuked the Jewish leadership for.

It’s clear that neither Christ, nor the apostles understood Peter to be the head of the church, and none of them agreed with the catholic church in the matter of Peter’s alleged supremacy. I found this on the net, but you can look up the scriptures yourself if you feel it’s inaccurate:

Luke 22:24-26 says, “Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors.But not so with you.On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant’.” QUOTE]

The very fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they did not understand that Peter was to be prince. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal–the last night of the Lord’s earthly ministry–and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their heads, **“But not so with you.” **Thus, Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the others.

Sorry to be so harsh - but scriputre is sometimes very blunt about these matters.

 

[jmcrae]

Now you’re splitting hairs. The Bible is a compilation of 66 books, written by 40 authors, overa period of about 1500 years. The scriptures did exist (old testament) when Jesus was on earth. He refers to them often, and often asked why the Jewish leadership did not know them, or did not follow them.

Yes, Jesus often quoted from the Hebrew scrolls. Jesus was using a set of 46 Hebrew scrolls when He did that - which later became our 46-book Old Testament in the Catholic Church.

The Bible (a single codex containing the entire corpus of Inspired writings) began to exist in the late 300s AD. Prior to that, the canon (table of contents listing) of the New Testament had not yet been established, and the Old Testament was still 46 different books.

It was only in the 1600s AD that Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament, for whatever reasons of their own.

The passage you refer to has been used by catholics for centuries - but it’s been misinerpreted, again taking a very simplistic view. If what you say is true, then why didn’t the Apostles take your view?

They did. If they hadn’t, then we wouldn’t have the Pope or the Bishops, today. Who do you think ordained the first Bishops of the Catholic Church? Who do you think set up the line of succession of the Popes?

Catholics have no special “power.” Where did you get this idea from? If catholics have a special power to interpret scripture that no one else has, then you must in turn claim that the Holy Spirit works in catholics alone - because the Bible says that the Holy Spirit communicates truth.

The Holy Spirit works in individuals to convert them to the Faith.

He works through His Church to preserve it from error, and in doing so, He preserves the Pope from being able ever to promulgate anything that is false as a Doctrine or Dogma of the Church. This doesn’t mean that people outside the Church can’t respond to the movement of the Holy Spirit to convert them - but we don’t each have our own personal Holy Spirit guiding us separately from the rest of the Church. There is only one Holy Spirit, and He is guiding the Church. Individuals who are being moved by the Holy Spirit towards conversion get their teachings and guidance from the Church.

We see this throughout the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.

You have a lot of misunderstandings about the Church - maybe you haven’t read the Catechism as carefully as you had thought, if you think that Indulgences can be sold, etc., or if you think it’s possible for a good Catholic to speculate on the final destiny of any soul other than his own or those of formally declared Saints.

It’s clear that neither Christ, nor the apostles understood Peter to be the head of the church, and none of them agreed with the catholic church in the matter of Peter’s alleged supremacy.

That’s because Peter and his successors aren’t “princes,” and they aren’t “supreme.” The actual title is “Servant of the Servants of God.”

He’s not there in the Vatican to be served chocolate, or to live the high life. He’s there to serve the Church as a type of nursemaid and Sunday School teacher, caring for our well-being and teaching us the truths of the faith. In turn, we take care of him. If we choose to dress him up in a gold robe, and put a crown on his head, that’s our doing; not his. Both the robe and the crown belong to the Church; not to the Pope.

When he dies, he will have nothing to pass on to an heir - everything he has, he borrows from us, the people of the Church. We choose to lend him these things because, quite frankly, we like the guy, and we appreciate the fact that he has given up his life for us (that is, any personal ambitions he may have had).

We could make him go around in rags, and make him live in a cardboard box in some Roman gutter - and maybe that would make some people happy - but we choose not to do that, because we believe that “the hireling is worthy of his pay,” as Christ said, somewhere - I leave it to you to look that one up.

 

[6YRSHOME]

John 4:24 "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Yes it is a baptist teaching because Jesus said it and that is why

in heaven everyone is a Baptist
allischalmers

In this passage he was talking with the samaitan woman at the well. It was part of his self revelation. He told her that her people worshiped what they did not understand, so he was making a reference to the Holy Spirit, The spirit given by God that reveals truth and enables on to worship God appropriately.

So you see, Catholics believe this as well. We believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it is only part of His revealed truth. I don’t believe God’s messages can be limited to a collection of inspired books.

John also said, " It is this disciple who tesifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his tesimony is true. There are also many things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do no think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."

So are you saying that because I am not Babtist I will never get to heavan??

 

[boppaid]

The Mass is a sacrifice. According to Old Testament protocol, a sacrifice consisted of two parts. The slaughter, and the offering. Jesus was slaughtered once, and is continually offered to the Father. So really, my earlier assertion that the Mass is a re-presentation is not totally accurate, but it is a sharing in the continual offering of the sacrifice. Remember, Jesus is infinite, so this is possible.

Thank you for explaining. I still have some questions, though, if you don’t mind. Why are we to partake in Old Testament protocol? Where are these types of sacrifices done in the NT after Christ died? (I’m not saying there isn’t any…I’m asking where, because I honestly don’t know where.)

 

[ricmat]

Now you’re splitting hairs. The Bible is a compilation of 66 books, written by 40 authors, overa period of about 1500 years. The scriptures did exist (old testament) when Jesus was on earth. He refers to them often, and often asked why the Jewish leadership did not know them, or did not follow them.

…so from the time the Catholic Church defined the Canon of Scripture (which books were to be included in the bible) in the late 300’s, until 1517 or so, how many books were in the bible?

Looks to me like somebody (not the Catholics) decided to remove some scripture.

I said the following below in red:
I asked you where your bible came from, and assumed you knew the answer. Apparently you don’t. The Catholic Church, using tradition and the “keys of Peter” looked at all the thousands of different “scriptures” and yes - decided what was inspired or not. If Catholics hadn’t the power to do that, then you have no bible, period.

and you responded with:

Catholics have no special “power.” Where did you get this idea from? If catholics have a special power to interpret scripture that no one else has, then you must in turn claim that the Holy Spirit works in catholics alone - because the Bible says that the Holy Spirit communicates truth.

You missed my point. Sometimes I’m not as clear as I should be. My point was that it was the Catholic Church (not individual Catholics), as institituted by Christ, and given authority by him that actually decided the Canon of Scripture (as I mentioned above). IT WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT DID THIS - THIS IS HISTORICAL FACT. Now if you say that the Catholic Church had no authority to do this, then you basically are saying that your Bible is worthless. Because it’s the Catholic Church (magesterium) that decided what’s in YOUR bible!

I was not saying that the Holy Spirit works only in Catholics, or that Catholics individually can interpret scripture correctly. It is the Church Magesterium (not individuals) that correctly interprets scripture. Otherwise you have the protestant problem of “everybody has their own unique interpretation.”

One of the biggest problems I have with your religion is that it promotes self righteousness. By being a catholic, I can be better than a non-catholic, because that other person has no grace. God doesn’t favor the non-catholic as He does me, and unless that person becomes a catholic like me, I have determined that God will turn that person away. On the other had, buy virtue of my catholic faith alone, I will be saved. It’s a faith I have to “join” in order to get grace and the favor of God. If I don’t “join”, I can’t recieve God’s grace. After I do join, I’m required to follow numerous rules and regulations to maintain God’s favor. The Bible describes this as “bondage”, and it’s the same type of system Jesus rebuked the Jewish leadership for.

I have never heard any Catholic teach what you state above. The Church presents the opportunity to use the “best” path to salvation, with the most “tools” available to help us, but it is not the ONLY way.

And in terms of rules and regulations - well, you’ve heard of the 10 commandments, right? Not the 10 suggestions…

But you’re probably thinking things like “not eating meat on Fridays” during Lent - This is a discipline meant to remind us that there are things more important than our own comfort and desires. Intended to help us practicing to control our “appetites”. You have a problem with this?

It’s clear that neither Christ, nor the apostles understood Peter to be the head of the church, and none of them agreed with the catholic church in the matter of Peter’s alleged supremacy.

Here’s a page of quotes from the early church fathers (starting as early as 80AD showing what they thought about Peter, etc.

chnetwork.org/ecf.html

 

[jmcrae]

Thank you for explaining. I still have some questions, though, if you don’t mind. Why are we to partake in Old Testament protocol?

Because we are a fulfullment of the Old Testament; not a negation of it.

Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross, which is re-presented in the Mass, replaces and supercedes the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament.

Rather than eating the sacrificed animal’s flesh to take away our sins, we eat the flesh of God to take away our sins.

 

[ricmat]

http://www.chnetwork.org/ecf.html

If you want to hear the actual TV program in which these quotes were discussed (to get more context), go to this link:

ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/SeriesSearchprog.asp?SeriesID=-6892289&NewLis%20t=&T1=journey

and click on program listed as produced on 3/19/2007 (it’s the first one in the list as of today, but it may change as they produce more programs).

 

[mepatri]

…so from the time the Catholic Church defined the Canon of Scripture (which books were to be included in the bible) in the late 300’s, until 1517 or so, how many books were in the bible?

The earliest indications of the Old Testament canon come from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and suggest that the process had begun during the Babylonian captivity (605-535 BC) with the Torah (the 1st 5 Books of the Bible). But the process was probably not complete until sometime in the 2nd Century BC. Deciding which books were to be included was done by senior priests (they were not Catholics) based on general agreement that each book was authentic (written by the person identified as its author) and divinely inspired.

The New Testament had pretty much come together by 150AD but there continued to be discussion about a few books until about 400 AD. It was not officially canonized until the Council of Trent in the 1500’s. There were three basic criteria for inclusion.

1. Were the authors either eyewitnesses to the events they wrote about or at least directly taught about them by the Apostles?
2. Was each book’s teachings consistent with church practice and tradition?
3. Was each book already in general use by the church, and accepted as the Divine Word of God?

In both Old and New testaments, the books included had to be generally viewed as the work of divinely inspired writers who faithfully converted God’s Word into written form. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

The important thing to realize is that Jesus did not start the Catholic church. Catholicism is a system of religion that gradually developed from the church started by Jesus, but Catholicism has long ago stopped resembling the original church.

I found a good explanation here of the falling away. I know of no other church that fits this description better than the Catholic Church. Many people recognize the hallmarks of Catholicism, especially Roman Catholicism as being the forbiddance of priests, monks, and nuns from marriage and the forbidding of foods at certain times of the year.

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (I Timothy 4:1-3).

Many recognize the hallmarks of Catholicism, especially Roman Catholicism as being the forbiddance of priests, monks, and nuns from marriage and the forbidding of foods at certain times of the year.

 

[mepatri]

It was only in the 1600s AD that Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament, for whatever reasons of their own.

This happend most likely because they recognized the falling away of the church, as I noted above, and sought to retain the true teachings of the Bible by following sola scriptura. They rightly saw it as the only way to truly hold on to the Christian faith.

 

[ricmat]

Deciding which books were to be included was done by senior priests (they were not Catholics) based on general agreement that each book was authentic (written by the person identified as its author) and divinely inspired.

The New Testament had pretty much come together by 150AD but there continued to be discussion about a few books until about 400 AD. It was not officially canonized until the Council of Trent in the 1500’s.

Many recognize the hallmarks of Catholicism, especially Roman Catholicism as being the forbiddance of priests, monks, and nuns from marriage and the forbidding of foods at certain times of the year.

Sorry, but you need to get a good history book.

The Catholic Church WAS the Church, the only church in the 400’s. The “senior priests” you speak of…THEY WERE CATHOLIC PRIESTS! Are you telling us that they were Lutherans or Jehovah’s Witnesses?

The Latin Vulgate, translated by St. Jerome in about 380AD, was the standard bible used in the Catholic liturgy, and it continued to be for almost a thousand years. And after that, local language translations (such as the Douay in English) replaced the Latin, but the canon (listing of books) remained unchanged.

At about the same time (late 300s), there were 3 CATHOLIC councils in which the Canon was “canonized.” Again, the outcome of those councils resulted in a bible canon that EVERYONE used for a thousand years, and which the Catholic Church still uses. The Council of Trent (a thousand years later), was called primarily to reaffirm teachings which Protestants disagreed with, and didn’t invent the current canon at that time (as you imply above).

As to marriage and foods. Christ didn’t marry, and talked of celibacy as a gift. And Christ followed the teachings of the OT, which included e.g. not eating pork. Or do you disagree?