which church brought us the Bible

[Contarini]

Bishopite:

I’ll give you 2 doctrines that the Catholic Church today has faithfully held on to and juxtapose them with Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Churches.

That’s hardly what I asked for. Of course if you pick your ground you can prove your point. But there are many other issues (communion in both kinds, for instance) where Protestantism restored the patristic practice and Catholicism stubbornly refused to do so (even condemning Protestants as heretics for doing what the early Church had done). I’m not claiming that we are closer to the early Church than you are. I’m claiming that we have all departed from the patristic model in certain ways (some of them good, others bad).

Bishopite:

1)Contraception (means against life) a doctrine forbiden in the early Church now all Protestant Churches and Eastern Orothodox accept it.

Not true. I know Protestants who are stricter on this point than the Catholic Church. But granted most Protestants do. The Orthodox position is more complex and not yet fully determined.

Of course, your position is not identical to that of the early Church either, because you allow NFP, which St. Augustine condemned as perverse and unnatural. But I’ll freely admit that it’s far closer on this point (and many others).

Bishopite:

Sadly even some Protestant Churches actually teach that Abortion is acceptable in some circumstances.

I’m entirely with you in deeply regretting this fact.

Bishopite:

2)The Bishop or Rome being the successor of Peter, the head of the Church was always accepted in the early Church; though the East had its tendency to rebel against the West and was consistantly being rescued by the papacy its Bishops were still under the authority of the Bishop of Rome until 1054.

Pretty clear!images/icons/icon7.gif

Well, everything is clear if you bludgeon history in such a rough manner. First of all, the Orthodox and many Protestants (certainly including myself) gladly accept the primacy of Rome. That is not in dispute. The manner in which it is exercised is in dispute–and there it’s very far from clear that you have the Fathers on your side. It’s self-contradictory to say “it was always accepted but they were constantly tending to rebel.” Bear in mind for a minute that you’re arguing with someone who does not accept all the current claims of Rome. So you can’t assume that all Roman claims of authority are legitimate, which means that you can’t convincingly use the concept of “rebellion.” Rebellion implies legitimate authority. We are asking whether the early Church accepted the authority of Rome, and you admit that large parts of it didn’t for large periods of time. This is fatal to your claim that the historical record is clearly in your favor!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Bishopite:

History is very clear, there was only ONE Church for at least 1000 years,

How does history tell us that the non-Chalcedonian churches don’t count as part of the Church? The consensus among ecumenists today appears to be that they were never really heretics. Certainly all baptized Christians were rarely if ever fully united.

Bishopite:

surely it was one Church during the formulation of the canon in the 4th century when today’s canon was cited for the first time during the council of Rome under Pope Damasus.

Well, I’ll grant you that by the definitions used by Catholics of that time, it was one Church (i.e., the Donatists don’t count–and granted they, unlike modern Protestants, were willing schismatics and were not accused of heresy).

Bishopite:

The only Church to recognize which books were authentic was the Roman Catholic Church because it was the only Church at the time.

It all depends on definition. I would say that the Roman Catholic Church in its modern sense began to exist at the Council of Trent. I don’t claim that I can prove this, since it’s a fairly subjective issue. But you certainly can’t prove the contrary. Doctrines were defined at Trent that had not been defined previously. To me, as a Protestant, that’s a rather major break. To you, as a Catholic, it’s just another continuous step of development.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

gryskull:

I don’t understand what you mean by legitimate heirs. There was only one Catholic Church then and there is only one now. Anybody who split from HER couldn’t be considered catholic.

You’re begging the question and arguing in circles. You start with the assumption that you are the one and only heir, and everything else builds on that. You speak of splitting from the one Church that existed in patristic times. But that’s not what we think we did. It’s certainly not what the Orthodox think they did, and they have a much stronger case than we do. You’re assuming that communion with Rome is sufficient to mark you as the one and only heir of the early Church. But that’s exactly what we deny. You can’t just assume it if you want to make a legitimate argument to non-Catholics.

gryskull:

Although though the Orthodox church would say otherwise, the truth still remains. They split from the Catholic church in 1054 hence they cannot be called the Catholic Church.

Again, you’re assuming what you need to prove. Given that Cardinal Humbert excommunicated the Patriarch before the Patriarch returned the compliment, a neutral observer would have to say that if anything it was the other way round. The only way you can make your case is to assume from the beginning that the side Rome is on is always the side of the true Church. This makes dialogue impossible, if you can’t make an argument that doesn’t already assume that you are correct.

It’s just like Protestants saying: “Obviously you can’t be the true Church because you anathematized the Gospel at Trent.” Fortunately, most of us would not say that anymore–and your most distinguished representatives wouldn’t say what you are saying either. But unfortunately this more reasonable approach hasn’t trickled down.

Hint: If you want to make a case that the Orthodox split away, the Council of Florence would be a much better place to make that case. Attention on 1054 will only weaken your argument. Up to Florence the guilt for the schism was pretty squarely on the shoulders of the West, it seems to me. After Florence it’s a tougher call.

gryskull:

As was said in a different thread, if you ask where the orthodox church is nobody would point you to a Catholic Church. They would point you to the Orthodox Church. Although the continuity of the succession is still there they still can’t claim that they are the one true Catholic Church.

That was a rather dubious argument when Augustine used it against the Manichees, and it’s downright silly as you are using it. You guys do claim to be the Orthodox Church, and they claim to be the Catholic Church. The respective terminology is almost purely for convenience (although Aidan Nichols does have a case that you prize unity more and they prize orthodoxy more). You can’t build an argument on it. At least such an argument will absolutely not fly with me (I’m sure you can find gullible people who will buy it).

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

gryskull:

The chapter and verses of the bible was also done by the Catholic Church. It was done by HER child by the name of Card. Stephen Langton of Canterbury who divided it into chapters–he died 1228-- and was subsequently divided into verses by Robert Stephen

Robert Etienne was not a Catholic–he was a Calvinist. You’re right about chapters, but you can’t take credit for verses.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

gryskull:

Nice thought. I’ve been to that thread and I was really skeptical about that chart. But your question is valid. Why change the name from Catholic to Orthodox if the one true Church had the name Catholic for more than one thousand years.

For convenience and courtesy. Most Orthodox I know call their Church the Orthodox Catholic Church when they give it its full name. They could call you the Evil Papist Schismatics (and sometimes do), but then of course you would say that people who are so rude couldn’t possibly be the True Church.

Sometimes I despair of you guys. If we don’t call you by your preferred name, you pitch a hissy fit and pull out all the weapons in the arsenal of political correctness. If we do, you invoke St. Augustine and argue that by calling you what you loudly insist you must be called we admit that you are what you claim to be. Which is it? If calling you Catholic means granting your claims, then fine–I’ll call you Romanists from now on and see if you like it any better . . . .

Edwin

 

[Subrosa]

tommy4321:

My faith in Jehovah God is strong. I am saddened that religion has lost his name that we read only twice in the King James Version of the Bible and completely lost in others. Zeal Jehovah’s name! Please don’t worry about me being foolish, I am not new to the Bible and have read from it for years if you read earlier remarks in this thread and have been with the Wittnesses for almost five years. I feel they are in the Truth in my opinion.

Praise should only be given only to the Lord our God in a religious sense… It is OK to respect and give non religious praise that does not belong to God to children and so forth. Praise to the pope or a man hurts our jealous God who is deserving of this praise as our Creator.

There is only One true God, not three. It could be said that there is two gods, the true God, the Almighty One, the God of Isreal and the god satan the devil that can appear to have powers that are godlike. There is not a JW God and this is a made up word. The Wittnesses follow the true God, Jehovah, yes the same name you read in the King James Verion Exodus 6:3 that many don’t pay much attention too.

Lastly, the small things (lesser) are important to God. Same when it comes to who receives praise in a religious sense. Look at how the smaller thing of Eve eating the Apple of the friut of knowledge in the Garden of Eden was really a big thing to Jehovah God. Same as the praise to a religious man is hurtful to our jealous God. I know it is done in religion and please accept my apology for quoting your reference to the pope as it seemed appropriate for the post. P.S., what about the question on praying directly to Mary as I have always wondered the Catholic opinion on this? Thanks for your kindness and caring.

Here is some Scripute quotes to back this. “God will not transfer to another the honor due Himself” Isaiah 42:8 “our Father in the Heaven, let your name be sanctified”" Matthew 6:9

Peace, tommy

With all due respect, Tommy, these issues belong on the Jehovah’s Witness forum (JWs ). They are legitimate topics and should have thier own discussions.

FYI, I am Catholic and have friendships with several Jehovah’s Witnesses, so I am understanding and respectful.

Please, this is a thread concerning Bible origin.

Subrosa

 

[twiztedseraph]

All praise is due to God for giving us the Catholic Church…His voice on Earth.

 

[santaro75]

Were there two septuagints? one by origen and one by someone else.

Some one in a different forum is saying tha the septuagint is a perverse book and not suitable because of the apocryphal books and additions to the original texts. obviously leading to the ooriginal catholic bible not being valid.

The problem with that statement is I found at least one source that says the Gospel writers and also Paul referred to the septuagint numerous times in their writings which says to me that they used it and there fore it has to be valid.

So i was wondering if maybe he is referring to a different septuagint than the one i was referring to.

 

[PaulDupre]

No, there is only one septuagint. Here is a bit of info on it from the “Quick Questions” section of This Rock magazine:

Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).

For those who may not know, the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The common abbreviation for it—LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70—come from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators.

By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.

But, while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact.

Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek. The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.

But, since you ask, here is an example where the Greek gospels present Jesus as quoting the Septuagint: In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”

Of course, the reason people usually ask about the New Testament authors’ use of the Septuagint is because it contains the seven deuterocanonical books that are now omitted from Protestant Bibles. Showing that the New Testament authors quoted from the LXX argues in favor of (though does not in itself prove) the inspiration of these seven books.

For a full list of potential New Testament allusions to the deuterocanonical books, go to the Internet site cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm.

Hope this helps,
Paul

 

[jason12712]

The bible canon was given to us by the catholic church, the same catholic church that did not want that canon translated from latin to german or english by martin luther and william tyndale. It is thanks to protestants that christians have any bible in english. The catholic church would have kept the Christians with just what they told them, and there would be no USA except for the protestant movement. We would all still be in Europe in a Catholic church, ignorant of most things esteemed as biblical truths these days if they would have had there way.

 

[PaulDupre]

You are correct that the Catholic Church gave us the bible. You are also correct that the Catholic Church did want want the bible to be translated by heretics like Tyndale and Luther.

There were two main reasons the Church did not want those translations circulated:

1. The translations were sloppy or incorrect. Luther’s German translation inserted the word “alone” into Romans 3:28 to try to convince unsuspecting readers of his doctrine of “faith alone”. He also intentionally mistranslated Matthew 3:2, Acts 19:18, Luke 10:28 and many other passages to furthur his agenda. (see the warning in Rev 22:18-19 about changing scripture)
2. The translations had heretical footnotes. The Tyndale bible was suppressed, not because the Pope did not want the people to have a bible in their own language (the Catholic Church had started vernacular translation projects before Tyndale started his) but because Tyndale was a Pope-hating anti-Catholic who put his hatred into the footnotes of his bible. For instance, he stated that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, that the Pope is the anti-Christ, that bishops are demons and all kinds of other stuff. Of course that was not the kind of bible that Catholic authorities wanted the faithful to be reading.

Remember that the Greek New Testament (compiled by the Catholic Church) was in the vernacular of the time, and later St. Jerome translated the bible into the common Latin of the people (the Vulgate) that most subsequent translators used for reference.
That was 10 centuries before Tyndale or Luther.

Paul

 

[Contarini]

But the Catholic Church frequently restricted lay access even to Catholic translations of the Bible. The Council of Trent left it up to the local bishop to decide whether or not to allow certain approved laypeople to read the Scriptures in the vernacular.

This is not the place to argue with your caricature of Luther’s translation (though in his essay On Translating he gives a rationale that fits pretty well with modern theories of translation).

Edwin

 

[MonicaC]

jason12712:

. The catholic church would have kept the Christians with just what they told them, and there would be no USA except for the protestant movement. We would all still be in Europe in a Catholic church, ignorant of most things esteemed as biblical truths these days if they would have had there way.

I really need to disagree with this statement considering it was the Spanish who came here first, and brought with them the Catholic religion.

I would reread your history if i were you!

 

[Contarini]

santaro75:

Were there two septuagints? one by origen and one by someone else.

No, but there were many different texts. The early Christians used the LXX (Septuagint) extensively. The NT writers themselves don’t always rely on it (sometimes they seem to be making their own translation directly from the Hebrew), but they often do. Attacking the LXX is a favorite fundamentalist parlor game. I wouldn’t put much stock in such arguments. As so often, they’re sawing off the branch (early Christianity) that they are sitting on.

Edwin

 

[santaro75]

jason12712:

The bible canon was given to us by the catholic church, the same catholic church that did not want that canon translated from latin to german or english by martin luther and william tyndale. It is thanks to protestants that christians have any bible in english. The catholic church would have kept the Christians with just what they told them, and there would be no USA except for the protestant movement. We would all still be in Europe in a Catholic church, ignorant of most things esteemed as biblical truths these days if they would have had there way.

What?!!

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

Well, everything is clear if you bludgeon history in such a rough manner. First of all, the Orthodox and many Protestants (certainly including myself) gladly accept the primacy of Rome. That is not in dispute. The manner in which it is exercised is in dispute–and there it’s very far from clear that you have the Fathers on your side. It’s self-contradictory to say “it was always accepted but they were constantly tending to rebel.” Bear in mind for a minute that you’re arguing with someone who does not accept all the current claims of Rome. So you can’t assume that all Roman claims of authority are legitimate, which means that you can’t convincingly use the concept of “rebellion.” Rebellion implies legitimate authority. We are asking whether the early Church accepted the authority of Rome, and you admit that large parts of it didn’t for large periods of time. This is fatal to your claim that the historical record is clearly in your favor!

In Christ,

Edwin

I certainly wouldn’t admit to that. The authority of Rome was very clear. At least in the mainstream fathers. St. Ireneus of Lyon, in his writing Against Heresies, points to her as being superior in which all churches must agree. St. Augustine said “Rome has spoken, the matter is settled.” St. Basil the Great when he saw the eastern churches in disarray because of arianism he writes to Pope Damasus and ask to intervene and bring the churches(eastern) back in communion. St. Ignatius of Antioch refers to HER as the church who holds the presidency in his letter to the romans. St. Clement of Rome dare settles the conflicts arising in the church of corinth. We can see through the early church that Rome had authority and a special office.

What seems ironic to me is your very own words. You acknowledge the primacy of Rome but not the authority behind HER office. That could hardly be reconciled. Just because you(and others) don’t recognize HER authoritty doesn’t mean that SHE doesn’t have it. I’ll go a little bit further as to say that “Just because SHE has incorrectly exercised her authority doesn’t mean that SHE doesn’t posses it.” Together with HER office comes the authority. The authority of the President of the United States is not dependent on whether you, I or other people believe or don’t believe in him. The president is able and will exercise his authority because he is in OFFICE. The same applies to the PAPACY.

With regard to the east being in schism during the early years of Christianity, yes I would admit to that. But they were only in schism for a short time and then they would reunite back with Rome. Not until 1054. This was marked by the excommunication of Marcus Ceraularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, by Pope Leo IX. But during this time the Primacy and Authority of the Pope has been well established.

This is the last time I would respond regarding the authority of the Pope. I think such discussion could be made in a different thread. Note that the question here is who gave us the bible?

 

[PaulDupre]

Contarini:

But the Catholic Church frequently restricted lay access even to Catholic translations of the Bible.

I have always heard this urban legend expounded by anti-Catholics, but have never seen an historical example. Examples, please.

The Council of Trent left it up to the local bishop to decide whether or not to allow certain approved laypeople to read the Scriptures in the vernacular.

Not quite. The Council of Trent left to the bishops, presiding over different cultures with diverse languages, to decide which vernacular versions their people would be allowed to read, not if they would be allowed. Huge difference. It may be true, however, that at times there was no acceptable vernacular version available in certain langauages or dialects.

Remember though that every educated person prior to the 19th century (and most until the mid-20th) could read and write Latin. So access to the scriptures was not a problem. St. Jerome’s translation was available at any Catholic Church - and it was accurate.

The bishops have always carried the burden of protecting the integrity of the scriptures and the message they carry. Part of that burden has been the authorization of local translations and editions of the bible, and the condemnation of heretical versions.
Paul

 

[Contarini]

PaulDupre:

I have always heard this urban legend expounded by anti-Catholics, but have never seen an historical example. Examples, please.

Is the Catholic Encyclopedia perpetuating an anti-Catholic urban legend? Scroll down to sect. VI–you will find plenty of examples of the Church restricting lay access to the Scriptures in the vernacular.

Not quite. The Council of Trent left to the bishops, presiding over different cultures with diverse languages, to decide which vernacular versions their people would be allowed to read, not if they would be allowed. Huge difference.

Huge difference indeed. Which is why it’s a serious matter that you are clearly wrong–as shown, once again, by the Catholic Encyclopedia. The Encyclopedia says nothing about deciding *which *versions could be read, but rather of leaving in the hands of bishops and confessors the decision to allow pious laypeople to read the Bible in the vernacular, period. Your revisionist interpretation has no evidence to support it that I can see.

See also Clement XI’s condemnation of the Jansenist Quesnel’s straightforward affirmation of the same principle upheld by Vatican II, that access to the Scriptures should be thrown wide to all the faithful. Or, in Quesnel’s words:

"79. It is useful and necessary at all times, in all places, and for every kind of person, to study and to know the spirit, the piety, and the mysteries of Sacred Scripture. 80. The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all.

1. The sacred obscurity of the Word of God is no reason for the laity to dispense themselves from reading it."

Whenever I bring this up, Catholics claim that these wholly orthodox propositions were heretical because of their context. But no one yet has explained what this heretical context was, or given me any reason to think that they know more about it than I do. Note that Gregory XVI in his encyclical Inter Praecipuas of 1844 describes the Jansenist error as holding that “because the reading of the Scriptures for all the faithful, at all times and places, was useful and necessary, it therefore could not be forbidden anyone by any authority.”

Remember though that every educated person prior to the 19th century (and most until the mid-20th) could read and write Latin. So access to the scriptures was not a problem.

No, you’re playing with language. It’s true that any truly educated person (make that man–women usually didn’t learn Latin) knew Latin. But only a small minority of the population were educated in this sense. From the later Middle Ages on there was a growing number of people who could read and write but did not know Latin. Who do you think read the vernacular translations that the Church condemned (if heretical) or restricted (if orthodox)? People who could read Latin? Not usually. Even educated Protestants continued to read the Bible in Latin for quite a while after the Reformation.

Access to the Scriptures was a huge problem from the late Middle Ages on. More and more laypeople could read the Bible in their own language and wanted to do so, and this scared the Church, because such educated laypeople were at the heart of major heretical movements. So when it seemed appropriate, the Church restricted lay access to the Scriptures, even in approved Catholic translations. It is patent fabrication to claim that the Church did not do this–the Church made no bones about having the right to do this, and better informed Catholics on this board admit that the Church did it and defend her right to do so. (Others, I hope, agree with me that it was a horrible mistake.)

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[dennisknapp]

Contarini:

Access to the Scriptures was a huge problem from the late Middle Ages on. More and more laypeople could read the Bible in their own language and wanted to do so, and this scared the Church, because such educated laypeople were at the heart of major heretical movements. So when it seemed appropriate, the Church restricted lay access to the Scriptures, even in approved Catholic translations. It is patent fabrication to claim that the Church did not do this–the Church made no bones about having the right to do this, and better informed Catholics on this board admit that the Church did it and defend her right to do so. (Others, I hope, agree with me that it was a horrible mistake.)

In Christ,

Edwin

Why was it a mistake? You said yourself that educated laypeople were at the heart of major heretical movements. The Church’s job is to safeguard those who abide in Her. Do parents not do the same thing?

Peace

 

[Contarini]

Vatican II (Dei Verbum 6.22) said: “Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. . . . the word of God should be accessible at all times.”

Do you agree with this statement or not? If you do, then you must agree that the Church made a serious mistake in the past by failing to uphold this principle.

The Church’s attempt to limit lay access to the Scriptures was an understandable reaction, but it was horribly wrong. Would you think it was OK for parents to keep their children from learning to read so that they wouldn’t run the risk of reading a bad book? Christians who don’t know the Bible are stunted Christians. The Holy Scriptures are the patrimony of all believers. When the leaders of the Church move from guiding the faithful in their interpretation of Scripture (which is their solemn duty) to keeping the Scriptures away from the laity, they have ceased to act as loving parents and have become jealous step-parents, attempting to cheat the faithful out of their rightful heritage.

I’m quite aware that the leaders of the Church did not do this consistently or totally. But they did do this at times and to some extent, and that’s bad enough.

Edwin