Replies

They were translations made in commentaries. Thus, translations. There were not, after all, a huge number of complete translations made during medieval times...

“The Catholic Church wrote the NT ( since all the human writers were Catholic )”

If by Catholic, you mean someone accepting the authority of the Pope, then no, that is not true. There is no indication during the first 400 years that anyone considered the Bishop of Rome to be the single human head of the church. Indeed, the Orthodox constituted the majority of the Christian Church, and they still do not accept the Pope as their head...do they.

The writers of the NT were catholic - part of the universal church - but NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC.

Nor did the Catholic Church set the canon. Not authoritatively until the Council of Trent, AFTER Luther. That is why the accuser of Luther was free to question the canon status of the Apocrypha.

The title Catholic Church was created by the Anglicans who speciously pretended they still belonged to the Catholic Church. The Orthodox believe they are the Catholic Church. I might add that they accept the same OT canon as the Catholic Church with the additions of the 3rd Book of Maccabees, the First Book of Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh. So what's your point about the canon? The Orthodox local Council of Jerusalem reaffirmed what the Council of Trent said a century earlier, which further reaffirmed what the early councils of the Church said. QUESTION III. What Books do you call Sacred Scripture? Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril {Lucar ELC} collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seemeth that not always have all been by all reckoned with the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, as well by Synods, as by how many of the most <156> ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture. http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

Although the extent of the Roman primacy as it developed in the Middle Ages came to be disputed the primacy of the Pope of Rome was a matter of historical fact. I'm a Melkite Catholic, so I adhere to the theory of the pentarchy, which views the papacy in a horizontal fashion. Rome has always been first. "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416

the historical ignorance is breathtaking.

prior to 1054, the Orthodox were in communion with the Catholic Church, all part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

the Baptist heretics( that i believe you follow ) did not show up for 500 years after the Great Schism.

i am grateful that unlike Baptism and the Eucharist, the Baptists accepted the Catholic canon of the NT.
since the canon of Scripture was not attacked until the 16th century, there was no reason for the Church to authoritatively set the canon. there were no 66 book Bibles used by anyone prior to the 16th century. various Church councils in the 4th century set the 73 book canon and this was universally accepted until 7 books were thrown overboard by certain sects in the 16th century.

one is only Catholic if they hold to the Catholic Faith. since Baptists do not accept the Nicene Creed, they can not be considered “Catholic” in any sense.