Skip to comments.Where We Got The Bible
Posted on 01/29/2014 4:53:38 PM PST by NKP_Vet
This little book about the Bible grew out of lectures which the writer delivered on the subject to mixed audiences. The lectures were afterwards expanded, and appeared in a series of articles in the Catholic press 1908-9, and are now with slight alterations reprinted. Their origin will sufficiently account for the colloquial style employed throughout. There is, therefore, no pretense either of profound scholarship or of eloquent language; all that is attempted is a popular and, as far as possible, accurate exposition along familiar lines of the Catholic claim historically in regard to the Bible. It is candidly controversial without, however, let us hope, being uncharitable or unfair. Friends had more than once suggested the reissue of the articles; and it appeared to the writer that at last the proper moment for it had come when the Protestant world is jubilating over the Tercentenary of the Authorized Version. Amidst the flood of literature on the subject of the Bible, it seemed but right that some statement, however plain and simple, should be set forth from the Catholic side, with the object of bringing home to the average mind the debt that Britain, in common with the rest of Christendom, owes to the Catholic Church in this connection. Probably the motive of the present publication will be best understood by a perusal of the following letter from the writer which appeared in the Glasgow Herald, 18th of March, 1911:
(Excerpt) Read more at tanbooks.com ...
I’ve purchased a lot of books from TAN though not in a while. I’m glad to see they are still around.
Right, see the documentary below for that:
The Nevi'im (Prophets) were written by various prophets in their own words relating things they received in the spirit of nevu'ah (prophecy).
The Hagiographa or Writings (Ketuvim) were written by holy men under the inspiration of Ruach HaQodesh (literally "Divine wind," though usually translated "holy spirit" or "holy ghost").
The eight books of the Prophets and eleven books of Writings we have in our Bibles today were canonized by the 'Anshei HaKeneset HaGedolah (Men of the Great Assembly) to be read until the coming of Mashiach at which point, though still available, they will no longer be relevant, having been fulfilled. So long as they are read as part of the TaNa"KH (Bible) they have not been fulfilled.
Any more questions?
bump for later
"The arrogant rooster brags that he makes the sun rise when he crows."
This has come to pass on FreeRepublic today.
Here's an "eye opener" for you:
GOD inspired HIS Word.
GOD moved men to record HIS Word.
GOD acted to preserve HIS Word throughout history.
GOD worked through humans to assemble HIS Word.
GOD began this process THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE any Christian Church came onto the scene.
Yet there is one group that brags just like the arrogant rooster, thinking it wasn't God at all...
I’ve never heard anyone claim the Bible is a Protestant book. And considering how hard Rome worked through the centuries to keep people from having access to the Bible, it’s odd that Rome now wants to claim she preserved the Bible.
Take a look at Rood’s “Raiders of the Lost Book” as well for some very important and recent discoveries about the book of Matthew. :)
Rome didn’t make a binding definition of the canon of scripture until the Council of Trent in the 1500s. And even then, it left open for debate the question “Is the Apocrypha just good reading, or is it good for determining doctrine?”
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
-Cardinal Cajetan (16th century)
I’m not familiar with him, but I will look for it.
More protestant revisionist marlarky. Are you sure uber-Catholic-basher Hal Lindsey didn’t write that fairy tale?
Pretty sure. I didn’t see his name in the credits for one. Despite persecution of Bible believers, including putting hundreds to a horrific death, the Catholic church did play a major role in preserving the words of Yeshua and of the Apostles, IMO, and have done much good in the world, as you well know. All religions have their issues and their leaders have all made mistakes. It’s why we must rely upon the scriptures in our search for the truth, not the mistaken words of man.
**1. To begin with, the Bible did not drop down from Heaven ready-made, as some seem to imagine; it did not suddenly appear upon the earth, carried down from Almighty God by the hand of angel or seraph; but it was written by men like ourselves, who held in their hand pen (or reed) and ink and parchment, and laboriously traced every letter in the original languages of the East. They were divinely inspired certainly**
Chuckling at the “dropped down from Heaven comment.
Pinto, the maker of the video you’re praising, is a real d-bag:
Pinto says, “This newest work really brings together so much of the research we’ve been unfolding. It shows further how the United States was planned from the beginning to help launch a global society, the New World Order.”
When asked what role the founders played in this global agenda, Pinto said, “They set forth the doctrine of religious freedom.”
“The doctrine had been designed by the Vatican and the Jesuit Order in England back in 1688,” says Pinto. “Their real purpose was to empower the Church of Rome to be in a position to overthrow England. The English Protestants rejected the idea, but Rome manipulated the revolutionaries to write it into the U.S. Constitution.”
Pinto’s ideas are bizarre, stupid, implausible - exactly the sort of nonsense ignorant anti-Catholic, mouth-breathing, inbred, Protestant morons love.
1. God is eternal, i.e., always was, is, and ever will be.
2. God is omnipresent, i.e., He is in every place.
3. God is immutable, i.e., He ever remains the same.
4. God is omniscient, i.e., He knows all things, the past, the present, and the future, and also our inmost thoughts (Jer. xvii. 10).
5. God is supremely wise, i.e., He knows how to direct every thing for the best in order to carry out His designs.
6. God is almighty, i.e., God can do all that He wills, and that by a mere act of His will.
7. God is supremely good, i.e., He loves His creatures far more than a father loves his children.
9. God is full of mercy and compassion, i.e., He very readily forgives our sins when we are sincerely sorry for them.
10. God is infinitely holy, i.e., He loves good and hates all evil.
11. God is infinitely just, i.e., He rewards all good and punishes all evil deeds.
12. God is a God of perfect truth, i.e., all that He reveals to man is true.
**2. In the second place we shall do well to remember that the Bible was not written all at once, or by one man, like most other books with which we are acquainted, but that 1500 years elapsed between the writing of Genesis (the first Book of the Old Testament) and the Apocalypse or Revelation of St. John (the last Book of the New). It is made up of a collection of different books by different authors, forming, in short, a library instead of a single work, and hence called in Greek, Biblia, or the Books.**
From the Old Testament to the end of the New Testament.
Protestantism is a heresy. There, I said it, and anyone who believes otherwise is deceiving himself.
**3. Thus our Bibles as we have them today for reading are translations that is, are a rendering or equivalent in English of the original Hebrew and Greek as it came from the pen of Prophet and Apostle and Evangelist.**
And also translated into Latin by St. Jerome.
**4. A last point must always be kept clearly in mind, for it concerns one of the greatest delusions entertained by Protestants and makes their fierce attacks on Rome appear so silly and irrational the point, namely, that the Bible, as we have it now, was not printed in any language at all till about 1500 years after the birth of Christ, for the simple reason that there was no such thing as printing known before that date. **
And the first Bible printed was in Latin as far as I know.
“Protestantism is a heresy.”
Thanks for sharing your unsupported opinion, so we know what you think. I feel fulfilled now.
All true, but are you posting on the right thread?
The Bible is God’s work, and it’s Christian. I’m familiar with a lot of claims about it, but don’t have time to read this article right now, but I will. To be fair, though, it should mention how the Catholic Church opposed, under penalty of death, the common person reading God’s Word, and did execute an untold number for that reason.
Shows how the Catholic Church has determined and proclaimed through her infallible rulings just which books are actually part of Sacred Scripture,
Which infallible, thus indisputable canon took over 1400 years after the last book was written.
and how she has preserved and maintained the Bible throughout the centuries.
The fact the Bible is made a servant for Rome, out of which she tries to wrest specious support for her Traditions of men, rather than her doctrines being based upon the degree of Scriptural warrant, as being the supreme authority.
Meanwhile, I keep seeing this "we gave you the Bible" polemical statement but never get a clear answer to the question i keep asking regarding the reason/argument behind it:
Are you saying that being the instruments and stewards of Scripture requires or renders them the infallible authority on it, so that which they reject must be rejected?
If they will not answer this then they should stop with the "we gave you the Bible" assertion, as it is meaningless. Salvation was the last one to refuse to answer this, and you can be the first one to do so. Again, without screeds if possible. However, since you affirmed that your basis for assurance is Scripture, as is ours, and which is non-Catholic, then your answer may no reflect RC belief.
I’ve got two thousand years of history compared to your five hundred. How’s that for “unsupported opinion”?
“Rome didnt make a binding definition of the canon of scripture until the Council of Trent in the 1500s.”
That is something of a half-truth. Someone reading your comments might come to the conclusion that the canon had not already been decided before Trent. It had. The canon was closed and preserved for well over a millennium before Trent. All Trent did was decide that no debate would any longer be tolerated within the Church on the issue. That’s why the canon was detailed.
“And even then, it left open for debate the question Is the Apocrypha just good reading, or is it good for determining doctrine?”
False. First, why are you quoting Cajetan? He is not Trent. He was merely one man with views all his own. He also died a decade before Trent opened. His opinion is meaningless. Second, post for us the source where you got this Cajetan quote from. Why does it seem to appear only on anti-Catholic websites - especially on one banned here at FR?
Second, look at your claim, “Is the Apocrypha just good reading, or is it good for determining doctrine?” You’re actually claiming the Catholic Church would use the term “Apocrypha” in exactly the same way you do in regard to books we call Deuterocanonicals?
I don’t know about everyone else, but God himself gave me the bible. Another thing he gave me is his only son to die for my sins on the cross. How great is that!? I believe in Jesus, and that he is who he says he is. I am saved by faith through his grace, and I don’t even have to worry about confessing to a man in a booth who has zero power to forgive sins.
I don’t know if it’s because I’m getting older and wiser, but the wolves in sheep’s clothing are getting easier to spot.
“Ive got two thousand years of history compared to your five hundred. Hows that for unsupported opinion?”
1. God has no grandchildren. Only children. Your underlying premise is foolish and doesn’t support your truth claim.
2. Heresy isn’t based on time.
3. Every Christian is part of the body, bride and assembly of Christ - conceived in the heart of the Father before the foundations of eternity, purchased with His blood in time and joint heirs with Him.
4. Much of the history you claim covered periods of heresy, corruption and sin.
Your unsupported claim falls far short of what He is all about. Why so earthly?
It is all about Him. It is all about His glory. His sacrifice. His exaltation.
Wanna see heresy? How ‘bout a guy that equates the Bible with the Koran:
(oh, did I mention it’s the Pope)
The money quote:
Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.
Care to explain what your leader is talking about? Do you agree with the Pope that the Koran will take you to same place that the Bible will?...and could you define heresy?
The Catholic Church, once it decided in the 3rd Century what books would be in the Bible, has the same Bible today as then. It wasn’t until Luther came along that any books of the Bible that had been considered inspired word of God were taken out of the Bible.
So it is not a case of Catholics added books to the Bible. This statement is impossible. Catholics were here before any Protestant denomination. Protestants removed books from the Bible, books that for 1500 years had been considered the inspired word of God. Unless you subscribe to a hidden church theory, it is impossible to not acknowledge these facts. And ask yourself, why would God allow His church to be hidden when He tells us not to “Hide our light under a bushel”? That makes no sense either.
“To be fair, though, it should mention how the Catholic Church opposed, under penalty of death, the common person reading Gods Word, and did execute an untold number for that reason.”
Show me the law. I dare you to show me the law from a Catholic ecumenical council or pope which says that the Church “opposed, under penalty of death, the common person reading Gods Word”. Show it to me. What you’re claiming is an outright falsehood, a fabrication, and I DARE YOU TO SHOW ME EVEN ONE ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OR ONE POPE who EVER said people should be put to death for reading the Bible.
Now, for you to prove your claim you must provide the following evidence:
1) You’re making a claim about a law, or a canon law, even if you don’t use the term, for you are claiming it had the force of law. After all people could be threatened with the loss of their very lives unless the law was behind it somehow. You had better post a law or canon law then.
2) It had better say the following: COMMON MEN can be or will be EXECUTED for READING God’s Word. Now, the COMMON MAN was not a heretic so your proof should not in any way be related to heresy or even it prosecution. Don’t like that? Tough. Name for me anyone who was ever executed for translating a Bible by the Catholic Church. (The answer is no one ever was).
3) If this was a Catholic practice, or something that could be laid at the feet of the Catholic Church, a huge body spread through many countries, then it had better be something that is representative of Catholic teaching and practice for many places and many times. In other words, a particular bishop’s opinion is meaningless. What the Bishop of East Podunk thought is meaningless toward your claim. What a local synod did or wanted to do is meaningless toward your claim. What a regional council did was meaningless toward your claim.
When you fail, and you will, I suggest you think long and hard about spreading fabrications on the internet. And don’t think for a second that my demanding you present evidence is the problem. You problem is you have no evidence for your claim.
“The Catholic Church, once it decided in the 3rd Century what books would be in the Bible,”
Ah, I hear the arrogant rooster crowing that he makes the sun rise...
mouth-breathing, inbred, Protestant morons [all], I'm sure you're thinking...
“That is something of a half-truth. Someone reading your comments might come to the conclusion that the canon had not already been decided before Trent. It had.”
But notice you provide no proof for this, just an assertion. This is because there is no evidence for your claim, but only evidence against it. Actually, in the West, the consensus is that what we call the apocrypha today was only useful for reading “for edification of morals,” but not for establishing doctrine. In fact, even of those who called the apocrypha scripture, or canonical, they still maintained this important distinction.
Athanasius on the apocrypha:
But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [standard new and old testament canon], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read. (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)
Rufinus on the Apocrypha:
But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not Canonical but Ecclesiastical: that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles Creed 36, p. 557-558.).
Jerome on the Apocrypha
These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.
You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jeromes Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).
Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures...Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon...Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels...the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles...let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs...Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt (Ibid., Letter CVII.12).
What the Savior declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Savior, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater...(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).
Cardinal Cajetan calls them not canonical for the confirmation of the faith, but canonical only in a certain sense for the edification of the faithful.
Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage. (Cardinal Cajetan, Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament, cited by William Whitaker in A Disputation on Holy Scripture, Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)
Official prefaces to Latin translations of the scripture making the same distinction:
At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation. ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)
“False. First, why are you quoting Cajetan? He is not Trent. He was merely one man with views all his own.”
He’s a cardinal and is therefore more credible than some random Papist trying to rewrite history. There was no church decision of which he was rebelling against, but was merely sharing the historical and correct view of his day, a reality even shared in Latin translations of the Bible put forward by the Roman church.
“leading Bible scholars, including David Brown, Roger Oakland, Alan OReilly, D.A. Waite and others.”
Not a single one of those chumps is a “leading” Bible scholar. D.A. Waite is a KJV Only twit, for instance.
“Also included are chief curators from the British Library in London, Erasmus House in Belgium, and the William Tyndale Museum in Vilvoorde, where Tyndale himself was burnt at the stake.”
Which tells us nothing. Chief curators appearing in a video tells us nothing about the veracity of the main line of thought put forward in the video.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8-9
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Please show where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary.
“The Bible contains 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents, with no historical errors or contradictions. The entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, bears the mark of Divine insnspiration.”
“The Catholic Church, once it decided in the 3rd Century what books would be in the Bible”
First of all, the Roman church didn’t even exist as it does today in the 3rd century.
Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.’ Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6.
Second of all, there was no church-wide decision that determined the canon in the 3rd century, unless you are trying to refer to Jerome (but this would be later) who put those books you mention out of the canon. The only ecumenical council, Trullo, at the time actually endorsed quite a few contradictory lists, including lists with even more books than the Catholic church today recognizes. Other councils were entirely regional, and therefore not binding, and thus, the view of Jerome prevailed in the west for quite a long time.
Where We Got The Bible
Some Biblical Truths
The "Apocrypha": Why It's Part of the Bible
How to Read the Bible A Three Step Plan (written for Catholics - valid for all)
Where Does the Bible Say We Should Pray to Dead Saints?
The Canon of Scripture [Ecumenical]
To understand Bible, one must understand its nature, pope says
Let the Bible be entrusted to the faithful
But Seriously Who Holds the Bibles Copyright?
Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ
Apostolic Authority and the Selection of the Gospels (Ecumenical)
The Bible - 73 or 66 Books? (Ecumenical Thread)
How Rediscovering the Plot of Sacred Scripture is Essential to Evangelization
The Word of God is a Person Not Merely a Text
Are Catholics into the Bible?
Are the Gospels Historical?
What is Biblical Prophecy? What Biblical Prophecy is NOT, and What It Really IS
Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"
The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old Syriac Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament
Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]
Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books
Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Donts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve
Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible
Luther took out books because they didn’t go along with the words that he added to the Bible. Check it out!
The Catholic Church, once it decided in the 3rd Century what books would be in the Bible
Pardon me. 4th Century. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
There is hope for you afterall.
“First, why are you quoting Cajetan?”
To point out that prior to Trent, there was an ongoing dispute concerning which books were in the canon, and how they were to be used.
“Second, post for us the source where you got this Cajetan quote from. Why does it seem to appear only on anti-Catholic websites - especially on one banned here at FR?”
Take your insinuations and stuff them.
Where did it come from?
“Cardinal Cajetan, the great opponent of Luther in the sixteenth century, in his Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament which was dedicated to Pope Clement VII, fully supported Jeromes teaching in separating the Apocrypha from the Hebrew canon.”
It is true that Catholic sites generally fail to mention the dispute about the status of the Apocrypha, both before and after Trent.
“Youre actually claiming the Catholic Church would use the term Apocrypha in exactly the same way you do in regard to books we call Deuterocanonicals?”
You DO realize “Deuterocanonical” was a word invented AFTER Trent, because Trent left out a few passages that had been accepted as part of the Apocrypha for 1000 years prior. When they realized they had screwed up their list, they had to invent a new word to describe the part of the Apocrypha they HAD remembered to list.
And even Trent did not answer the question about using the Apocrypha, now shrunk down a little to the “Deuterocanonical” (word invented in 1566), books for doctrine:
“The tracts of the two generals of Orders show that opinions diverged widely even within the Council. The prestige of the Augustinian general and that of the Bishop of Fano who sided with him, may have prompted Cervini to discuss the whole complex question in his class. It became evident that no one supported the subtle distinction between a canon fidei and a canon morum, though it met with a somewhat more favourable reception in the general congregation of 12 February when several of the Fathers deemed it useful, though not necessary. The majority agreed with the opinion of the general of the Servites, that controverted theological questions, which had already been the subject of discussion between Augustine and Jerome, should not be decided by the Council but should be allowed to remain open questions. The result of the above-mentioned vote of the general congregation of 15 February committed the Council to the wider canon, but inasmuch as it abstained from a theological discussion, the question of differences between books within the canon was left as it had been. Hubert Jedin, History of the Council of Trent, pgs 56-57
The New Testament was not decided upon until the late 4th century, at the Council of Rome, in the year 382. This collection of writings from the first century Christians was determined by this Council to be divinely inspired by God, the real author. Many other writings were considered, but were thrown out by the Catholic Church as not being the authentic Word of God. The interesting fact here is that this means for almost 400 years the Christians of those days had no Bible to refer to. Therefore, the Church that Jesus Himself had set up had to primarily transmit His Word orally (some rare individual manuscripts did exist, but were mainly limited to Churches, and not considered divinely inspired as sacred scripture until 382 AD), which is the beginning of the doctrine of Tradition.
I’m stealing that, around here it will get a lot of use.
“The New Testament was not decided upon until the late 4th century, at the Council of Rome, in the year 382. This collection of writings from the first century Christians was determined by this Council to be divinely inspired by God, the real author.”
What you are actually referring to is the alleged Decree of Gelasius, often ascribed to earlier popes as well, and to the council of Rome. It is a fake:
“The Decree of Gelasius (Decretum Gelasianum), which contains a list of canonical books, was so called because it was formerly ascribed to Pope Gelasius (in office from 492 to 496). Various recensions of the same decree were also ascribed to the earlier Pope Demasus (366-384) and the later Hormisdas (514-523), or to councils over which they presided. But for the past century most scholars have agreed with Ernst von Dobschütz’s conclusion that all the various forms of the decree derive from the independent work of an anonymous Italian churchman in the sixth century.”
Yeah, but what does he know?