This suffers from two internal contradictions.
Let’s look at that first point, that the words of Scripture explicitly pass on authority to a divine institution, namely to the Church instituted by our divine Lord Jesus Christ. The authority of the Church to "bind and loose," the authority to determine "whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained"; the authority inherent in the possession to "the keys of the kingdom of heaven," whose significance is foretold in Isaiah, the power to "open and shut" the kingdom, with the one who holds the keys clothed in "all the glory of his father's house." (Isaiah 22:20-24)--- all of these bequests of authority are found in the very words of Scripture.
They are found both in their Biblical foretelling and foreshadowing (prophets and kings), their Biblical institution (Gospels) and in their earliest subsequent development (Epistles).
In order to minimize or extinguish the authority of the Church, you would have to minimize or extinguish these Scriptures; and this you cannot do, because these Scriptures are "the Word" which you and we revere.
The second contradiction is that the preservation and canonization of Scripture itself was passed on through the Church.
The King James Bible, first published in 1611, contained the full Bible as defined by the earliest Christian canons of the 3 rd-5 th centuries. That is, the 1611 KJV included, not just 66 books, but the entire un-cut Bible, including the "books called Apocrypha.” This “whole” canon approved by Catholic councils and popes in the 3 rd-5 th centuries, is found in print in the Tyndale-Matthew Bible (1537) , the Great Bible (1539) , the Bishops Bible (1568) , the Protestant Geneva Bible (1560) , and the original King James Bible (1611) until parts of it were intentionally deleted by a series of subsequent Bible revisers from 1640-1880.
This leads to the vey natural question, where did they get their new, several-books- smaller Biblical canon, and who authorized that?
Ah, there’s the interesting part. Having rejected the traditional 1500-year-old Christian (Catholic-Orthodox) canon, the revisers had to seek a different OT canon, namely the Jewish Masoretic (Hebrew), derived ultimately from the work of Rabbi Akiva, the father of Rabbinical Judaism.
Rabbi Akiva and his circle (the School of Jamnia) developed their own list of OT canonical books for reasons that were non-Christian, and in fact, theologically anti-Christian.
Rabbi Akiva and the other Rabbis associated with his school, notably Rabbi Meir, Judah ben Ilai, Simeon bar Yohai, Jose ben Halafta, Eleazar ben Shammai, and Rabbi Nehemiah, wished to “purify” the Jewish OT canon from the influences of the early Christian Church. The Christians used the LXX OT canon very effectively throughout the Hellenic Mediterranean world to gain converts; Rabbi Akiva and his pupil and translator, Aquila of Sinope, wished to curb that by delegitimizing the LXX and promoting a shortened and revised, de-Christianized text for use in Jewish synagogues.
Thus, to the extent that all the early Protestant Bibles, including the KJV, retained the book-list of the Catholic Scriptures for more than a century, from 1537-1640, you do owe a debt to the Catholic Church for the preservation and transmission of the Biblical canon.
To the extent that most Protestant Bibles after 1640, and especially after 1880, rejected the LXX books and the Septuagint translation generally, you owe a debt to Akiva and Aquila, and the systematically anti-Christian faction of Rabbinical Judaism.
Naw, those things weren't passed on to an institution...They were intended for the people they were presented to...Nothing in the scriptures says they were to be passed on...They also are for a specific Kingdom...
Rabbi Akiva and the other Rabbis associated with his school, notably Rabbi Meir, Judah ben Ilai, Simeon bar Yohai, Jose ben Halafta, Eleazar ben Shammai, and Rabbi Nehemiah, wished to “purify” the Jewish OT canon from the influences of the early Christian Church. The Christians used the LXX OT canon very effectively throughout the Hellenic Mediterranean world to gain converts; Rabbi Akiva and his pupil and translator, Aquila of Sinope, wished to curb that by delegitimizing the LXX and promoting a shortened and revised, de-Christianized text for use in Jewish synagogues.
Most of your earliest church fathers used language which was consistent with Masoretic Texts which the KJV is derived from...
There is no evidence incidentally that a mysterious LXX existed before Origen showed up...Even then, you have to take the word of Eusebius who was likely the author of the LXX...
God said he (not the Catholic religion) would preserve his words forever...There aren't enough Catholic manuscripts to fulfill the task...And what few there are disagree with each other in over 3000 places...And there are zero texts that reference the origin of all of the Catholic traditions...I'll stick with the Masoretic Texts and it derivatives...
Just what exactly is in these "Apocryphal" books that made them "Christian" that the Jewish leaders rejected them from their canon?
These books were supposedly written prior to the coming of Christ and some spoke of battles fought by the Jewish nation. Why would they have wanted to exclude such writings as the victorious Maccabees?
Isn't it true that these extra-biblical books were ALWAYS considered separately from the universally recognized inspired sacred writings contained in the Old Testament and that such notaries as Jerome, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius rejected them as divinely-inspired?
Isn't it true that these "extra" books were rejected as sacred inspired writings based on the facts that they contained errors and false teachings and because their authors were not recognized as Prophets of God? For a list of the errors in the Apocrypha, see http://carm.org/errors-apocrypha.
That being said, Jesus and Paul recognized the place of the Jews as, "Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2) Seeing as they were the caretakers of God's written word since the time of Moses, did God take away this trust? Jesus never challenged their place.
It wasn't until the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.) that they were dogmatically decided on as belonging in the canon and this as a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.
From Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible:
Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”
Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.
The Apocryphal books do not share many of the characteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).
This asserted "authority" the Catholic Church claims to define what is or isn't Holy Scripture denies the fact that it is God who is the author of Scripture and even the Catholic Church accepts this truth. If, therefore, God is the author and the preserver of His word, all the church and its members are authorized to do is receive, believe and obey what God has given forth. The Old Testament Jews understood this. There's no reason New Testament believers can't as well.
It seems that many Catholics throw out this challenge as if no other Bibles are "complete" and that they, alone, have the only "true" one. This is a false assurance considering the above information as well as the fact that ALL the early translations (even Martin Luther's) did include these Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books. They were simply placed in a separate section noted as for the reading and "edification" of the church but not for deriving doctrine because they were not accepted as Divinely-inspired.
It is also NOT a true statement that "Protestants" accept the Jewish canon rather than the Roman Catholic one. Again from the above source:
The ONLY difference between the Bibles we have and the one used by the Catholic Church is these seven books. ALL of the others ones are identical. So the real question must be what is missing in a Bible that excludes these seven books? The answer is simply that the one that leaves them out is the TRUE Holy Scripture God meant us to know and trust. That's because they ARE from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and given so that men and women of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.