How 27 Writings Became The New Testament

[Katholikos]

Those in the know, know that the Catholic Church wrote the documents that later became the New Testament and that at the end of the fourth century, she canonized the contents of the NT, making her selection from among many writings that circulated among the local Churches during the first centuries of Christianity. How were these 27 selected?

The Catholic bishops had a "yardstick" by which they measured.

- The writing had to have been written by an Apostle or by someone directly under the influence of an Apostle (e.g., Luke was not an eyewitness, but was a companion of St. Paul's, John Mark was a disciple of St. Peter and wrote Peter's recollections, etc.).

- The writing had to have been read aloud as part of the Church's liturgy (which we now call the Divine Liturgy or the Mass).

- The writing had to have been accepted by all the local Churches.

- [b]The writing had to reflect the teaching of the Church[/b].

[b]IOW, the Church's teaching was the measure of the writings of the NT, not the other way around. If a writing did not reflect the teaching of the Church, it was not accepted into the canon of Scripture.[/b]

So you see how ridiculous it is for some to accuse the Church of being 'unbiblical.' The writings would not have been included in the NT at all if they had not conformed to the teaching of the Church.

If the New Testament seems to Protestants to be in conflict with Catholicism, it's their [i]INTERPRETATION[/i] of it that's at fault.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." ~John Henry Newman

Likos

[homeschoolmom]

Good post. Thanks.

[XIX]

Okay that's good when debating Protestants.

But say you are debating a non-Christian who goes "Yeah, the Catholic Church just wanted to make themselves look good, so they canonized a Bible that says they are right about everything so that they get more power. Etc. etc. etc."

How do you respond to that?

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1253036' date='Apr 22 2007, 12:31 PM']Those in the know, know that the Catholic Church wrote the documents that later became the New Testament and that at the end of the fourth century, she canonized the contents of the NT, making her selection from among many writings that circulated among the local Churches during the first centuries of Christianity. How were these 27 selected?

The Catholic bishops had a "yardstick" by which they measured.

- The writing had to have been written by an Apostle or by someone directly under the influence of an Apostle (e.g., Luke was not an eyewitness, but was a companion of St. Paul's, John Mark was a disciple of St. Peter and wrote Peter's recollections, etc.).

- The writing had to have been read aloud as part of the Church's liturgy (which we now call the Divine Liturgy or the Mass).

- The writing had to have been accepted by all the local Churches.

- [b]The writing had to reflect the teaching of the Church[/b].

[b]IOW, the Church's teaching was the measure of the writings of the NT, not the other way around. If a writing did not reflect the teaching of the Church, it was not accepted into the canon of Scripture.[/b]

So you see how ridiculous it is for some to accuse the Church of being 'unbiblical.' The writings would not have been included in the NT at all if they had not conformed to the teaching of the Church.

If the New Testament seems to Protestants to be in conflict with Catholicism, it's their [i]INTERPRETATION[/i] of it that's at fault.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." ~John Henry Newman

Likos[/quote]


Yeah, I was thinking over the weekend about Budge's oft-used term, "Bible-believing Christians" in light of the fact that the canon of the Bible wasn't agreed until ~AD 400. Specifically, I wondered what a "Bible-believing Christian" would have been prior to ~AD 400.

[kujo]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1253036' date='Apr 22 2007, 02:31 PM']Those in the know, know that the Catholic Church wrote the documents that later became the New Testament and that at the end of the fourth century, she canonized the contents of the NT, making her selection from among many writings that circulated among the local Churches during the first centuries of Christianity. How were these 27 selected?

The Catholic bishops had a "yardstick" by which they measured.

- The writing had to have been written by an Apostle or by someone directly under the influence of an Apostle (e.g., Luke was not an eyewitness, but was a companion of St. Paul's, John Mark was a disciple of St. Peter and wrote Peter's recollections, etc.).

- The writing had to have been read aloud as part of the Church's liturgy (which we now call the Divine Liturgy or the Mass).

- The writing had to have been accepted by all the local Churches.

- [b]The writing had to reflect the teaching of the Church[/b].

[b]IOW, the Church's teaching was the measure of the writings of the NT, not the other way around. If a writing did not reflect the teaching of the Church, it was not accepted into the canon of Scripture.[/b]

So you see how ridiculous it is for some to accuse the Church of being 'unbiblical.' The writings would not have been included in the NT at all if they had not conformed to the teaching of the Church.

If the New Testament seems to Protestants to be in conflict with Catholicism, it's their [i]INTERPRETATION[/i] of it that's at fault.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." ~John Henry Newman

Likos[/quote]

Where did this info come from? I'd really like to read more on it and present it to some of my Prot friends.

[Katholikos]

[quote name='XIX' post='1254077' date='Apr 23 2007, 11:19 AM']Okay that's good when debating Protestants.

But say you are debating a non-Christian who goes "Yeah, the Catholic Church just wanted to make themselves look good, so they canonized a Bible that says they are right about everything so that they get more power. Etc. etc. etc."

How do you respond to that?[/quote]

That is a misunderstanding of why and to whom the New Testament was written. It's a [b][i]collection[/i][/b] of writings by Catholics to Catholics, by beleivers to believers. There was no intention of "getting power" or "making themselves look good." The NT is the literary record of the spiritual life of the newborn Catholic Church during the first Christian century.

The Bible is an "insiders" book, produced for members of the Church. It was driven by the need for an authoritative collection. Heretical sects developed, with their own list of sacred books. Christians were persecuted for their faith, and it was important to know which books could be renounced and which could not be handed over to the Roman police without committing sacrilege. The Bible [i](ta biblia - "The Little Books")[/i]consists of the Greek Septuagint OT which was inherited from Jesus and the Apostles, together with 27 of the Church's own writings.

The writings that eventually came to be included in one volume and called the New Testament were written to individuals (Luke, Acts, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, 3 John); to particular Churches that had been founded by St. Paul and taught by him personally (Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, Thessalonians); to Jewish Christians (Hebrews); to a specific Church community called "the chosen lady and her children" (2 John); to Churches in Asia Minor (1 and probably 2 Peter); and to "the seven Churches in Asia" (Revelation). Matthew, Mark, John, 1 John, James, and Jude were written to the Church in general. All Christians belonged to the Church that was called Catholic in A.D. 107. Again, the NT was not written for an outside audience. You can see this by reading the first few verses in each of the 'books.'

Thanks for your question. If you have more, I'll do my best to answer them. Everybody jump in!

Likos

[Katholikos]

Addendum to my last post:

The contents of the OT and NT were named by the Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397, 419). Catholic and Protestant scholars alike usually cite the Council of Carthage (397) as the decisive date for canonization of the Bible. The canon was reiterated by the Council of Florence (1445). The Vulgate, commissoned by Pope Damasus I following the Council of Rome and published in 402, was affirmed at the Council of Trent (1545-63). At all of these councils, the list of canonical Scriptures was the same. The Church has never added to the canon or subtracted from it since it was first set.

However, Luther subtracted eleven books and parts of Daniel and Esther from the canon, four from the NT and seven from the OT. The NT books were restored to the canon by his followers; the OT books were never restored and are missing to this day from Protestant Bibles.

Likos

[Katholikos]

[quote name='kujo' post='1254148' date='Apr 23 2007, 01:11 PM']Where did this info come from? I'd really like to read more on it and present it to some of my Prot friends.[/quote]

I took a two-year course in Bible studies at the graduate level, offered through the University of San Francisco. That's where I first learned it.

I spent some time finding Protestant or neutral sources you could use with your friends.

Here's four:

[url="http://www.ntgreek.org/SeminaryPapers/ChurchHistory/Criteria%20for%20Dev.."]http://www.ntgreek.org/SeminaryPapers/Chur...a%20for%20Dev..[/url].

[url="http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/canonselect.html"]http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/canonselect.html[/url]

[url="http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=53443&display_order=3&sub_display_order=14&mini_id=5342"]http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content...mp;mini_id=5342[/url]

[url="http://www.ntcanon.org/"]http://www.ntcanon.org/[/url]

Let me know if you need more or different websites or if you have any questions.

Likos

[Sojourner]

Thanks for all the info. This is very interesting, Likos. :

[kujo]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1254725' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:29 AM']I took a two-year course in Bible studies at the graduate level, offered through the University of San Francisco. That's where I first learned it.

I spent some time finding Protestant or neutral sources you could use with your friends.

Here's four:

[url="http://www.ntgreek.org/SeminaryPapers/ChurchHistory/Criteria%20for%20Dev."]http://www.ntgreek.org/SeminaryPapers/Chur...a%20for%20Dev.[/url]..

[url="http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/canonselect.html"]http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/bible/canonselect.html[/url]

[url="http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=Minisite_Generic&content_type_id=53443&display_order=3&sub_display_order=14&mini_id=5342"]http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content...mp;mini_id=5342[/url]

[url="http://www.ntcanon.org/"]http://www.ntcanon.org/[/url]

Let me know if you need more or different websites or if you have any questions.

Likos[/quote]

Sweet. The first and third link didn't work, though.

Any good books you recommend? They don't have to "neutral." I'm Catholic...and we're right!

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1253036' date='Apr 22 2007, 11:31 AM']So you see how ridiculous it is for some to accuse the Church of being 'unbiblical.' The writings would not have been included in the NT at all if they had not conformed to the teaching of the Church.

If the New Testament seems to Protestants to be in conflict with Catholicism, it's their [i]INTERPRETATION[/i] of it that's at fault.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." ~John Henry Newman

Likos[/quote]

It's a great post but that's not exactly the angle that Protestants [and others that disagree with the Roman Catholic Church] take. It has more do to with the fact that many people [myself included] believe that the current Roman Catholic doctrines don't reflect that of the Bible, or the Early Church. Take for example the new "limbo" doctrinal debate/discussion. After centuries of tradition saying that baby's that died without being baptized were condemned, the church decided to change tradition [probably back to what the original tradition used to be/say...]. It also revolves around the fact that the Roman Catholic Rite wasn't the only Rite that Jesus Christ and the Apostles affirmed. St. Mark and St. Peter also [together] founded the Syriac Orthodox Church, St. Mark the Coptic Orthodox Church, etc. If you check history, you'll see that St. Athanasious was Coptic, that St. Antony the father of Monasticism was Coptic, that St. Clement of Alexandria [the head dude of his time] was Coptic.

The Roman Catholic Church isn't even mentioned in the Bible, but the Syriac, Coptic and Antiochian Rites are all mentioned personally [and I think Etheopian too]. The book of St. Mark has even Aramaic phrases that are still used in the Syriac Orthodox Church. Most Protestants that I'd met, understand this piece of history, so often question weather the Roman Tradition is that which was always used. Particularly with the situation of the previous Roman Catholic tradition of baby's in "limbo" being changed. It appears that not all of the Roman Catholic Traditions were what the original church practiced at the beginning, or even around the time of the Bible's compilation.

Now even thou the Roman Catholic Church isn't directly mentioned in the scriptures, that Latin isn't used [as Coptic isn't] doesn't mean that its traditions, heritage doesn't date back to the Early Church, it's just difficult for some people to believe sometimes [as it is for them with the Coptic Orthodox Church].

Reza

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1254883' date='Apr 24 2007, 02:54 AM']It's a great post but that's not exactly the angle that Protestants [and others that disagree with the Roman Catholic Church] take. It has more do to with the fact that many people [myself included] believe that the current Roman Catholic doctrines don't reflect that of the Bible, or the Early Church. Take for example the new "limbo" doctrinal debate/discussion. After centuries of tradition saying that baby's that died without being baptized were condemned, the church decided to change tradition [probably back to what the original tradition used to be/say...]. It also revolves around the fact that the Roman Catholic Rite wasn't the only Rite that Jesus Christ and the Apostles affirmed. St. Mark and St. Peter also [together] founded the Syriac Orthodox Church, St. Mark the Coptic Orthodox Church, etc. If you check history, you'll see that St. Athanasious was Coptic, that St. Antony the father of Monasticism was Coptic, that St. Clement of Alexandria [the head dude of his time] was Coptic.

The Roman Catholic Church isn't even mentioned in the Bible, but the Syriac, Coptic and Antiochian Rites are all mentioned personally [and I think Etheopian too]. The book of St. Mark has even Aramaic phrases that are still used in the Syriac Orthodox Church. Most Protestants that I'd met, understand this piece of history, so often question weather the Roman Tradition is that which was always used. Particularly with the situation of the previous Roman Catholic tradition of baby's in "limbo" being changed. It appears that not all of the Roman Catholic Traditions were what the original church practiced at the beginning, or even around the time of the Bible's compilation.

Now even thou the Roman Catholic Church isn't directly mentioned in the scriptures, that Latin isn't used [as Coptic isn't] doesn't mean that its traditions, heritage doesn't date back to the Early Church, it's just difficult for some people to believe sometimes [as it is for them with the Coptic Orthodox Church].

Reza[/quote]

Limbo (for babies) has never been doctrine. Furthermore, it hasn't been overturned as a theological hypothesis yet (although I side with the commission).

Just wanted to add that clarification.

God bless,

Micah

[Katholikos]

I'm so sorry two of the links didn't work. I cut and pasted them directly from their websites last night. But, that's the way it is in computerland.

Google "criteria used for developing the new testament canon"

The first URL listed is a paper written by Corey Keating for a professior at (Protestant) Fuller Theological Seminary. That's the first link I listed (after I printed and read the entire paper).

The seventh URL will connect you to the third link (history) I listed.

Likos

[N/A Gone]

SOmeone get Phatcatholic to attach this to the defense directory

[Katholikos]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1254883' date='Apr 24 2007, 03:54 AM']It's a great post but that's not exactly the angle that Protestants [and others that disagree with the Roman Catholic Church] take. It has more do to with the fact that many people [myself included] believe that the current Roman Catholic doctrines don't reflect that of the Bible, or the Early Church.[/quote]

Hi, Reza,

Sad to say, some are blind to the implications that historical facts have upon their theology. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Mt 13:9).

How about the Byzantine Catholic Church, or the Maronite Catholic Church, or the Coptic Catholic Church, or any of the 22 Churches (23 counting the Roman rite) that together constitute the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? Are they biblical, in your opinion?

Orthodoxy fails to follow the biblical teaching on the primacy of Peter, the Chief of the Apostles and head of the one united, universal (Catholic) and Apostolic Church.

I considered the Orthodox before I became a Catholic. But in addition to the disagreement over who is in charge of the Church, they have caved in on certain moral issues they held firmly to for centuries. I also couldn’t accept the ethnic divisions within Orthodoxy. I had to choose among the autonomous Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, Coptic, or other Orthodox Churches. They're too identified and integrated with the governments of those countries, IMHO. The Church needs a center of unity -- the Pope, our Papa, the successor to St. Peter. This is the biblical model of the one unified Church.

[quote]Take for example the new "limbo" doctrinal debate/discussion. After centuries of tradition saying that baby's that died without being baptized were condemned, the church decided to change tradition [probably back to what the original tradition used to be/say...].[/quote]

Condemned? Limbo, which was pure theological speculation and neither doctrine nor Sacred Apostolic Tradition, was not condemnation but a state of perfect natural happiness.

Limbo, as Raphael said, is not now and never was a doctrine. It was the speculation of some theologians. Be careful what you read in the media, who always gets it wrong when reporting the activities of the Catholic Church. Go to an official Catholic source.

[quote]It also revolves around the fact that the Roman Catholic Rite wasn't the only Rite that Jesus Christ and the Apostles affirmed.[/quote]The Church's name is not Roman Catholic. It is simply, the Church. Or, the Catholic Church. Roman is only one of the many rites of the Church.

[quote]St. Mark and St. Peter also [together] founded the Syriac Orthodox Church, St. Mark the Coptic Orthodox Church, etc. If you check history, you'll see that St. Athanasious was Coptic, that St. Antony the father of Monasticism was Coptic, that St. Clement of Alexandria [the head dude of his time] was Coptic.

Yes, of course. But the original name of these Churches wasn’t Orthodox, was it? And I wouldn’t characterize St. Clement of Alexandria as “the head dude of his time.” He wasn’t head of the universal Church – the successor to St. Peter -- but he was very important in the history of the Church. Here’s what Benedict XVI had to say about him recently, on April 16 of this year:

[url="http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=106189"]http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=106189[/url]

[quote]The Roman Catholic Church isn't even mentioned in the Bible, but the Syriac, Coptic and Antiochian Rites are all mentioned personally [and I think Etheopian too].[/quote]

The Church wrote the NT. The term 'Catholic' was first mentioned in writing by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans c. A.D. 107, who probably learned it from his teachers and mentors, the Apostles: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Notice that Ignatius didn't say, 'there is the Orthodox Church.') Please provide the cites for the rites you mention. I’d be interested in reading them.

[quote]The book of St. Mark has even Aramaic phrases that are still used in the Syriac Orthodox Church.[/quote]Yes, the Catholic Church certainly acknowledges that the Eastern Churches are her sisters and works diligently for reunification. Pray for the unity of the once undivided Churches! As JPII said, there's plenty of blame on both sides of the Great Schism.

[quote]Most Protestants that I'd met, understand this piece of history,[/quote]

I’m glad to know that. Most Protestant I’ve met don’t have a clue, nor did I when I was Protestant.

[quote] so often question weather the Roman Tradition is that which was always used. Particularly with the situation of the previous Roman Catholic tradition of baby's in "limbo" being changed. It appears that not all of the Roman Catholic Traditions were what the original church practiced at the beginning, or even around the time of the Bible's compilation.[/quote]I refer you to John Henry Newman’s book, [i]An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.[/i] Newman (an Anglican priest) was set on proving that the Catholic Church was not the church of history. When his research and his book were finished, he put down his pen, called a priest, and became a Catholic.

[quote]Now even thou the Roman Catholic Church isn't directly mentioned in the scriptures, that Latin isn't used [as Coptic isn't] doesn't mean that its traditions, heritage doesn't date back to the Early Church, it's just difficult for some people to believe sometimes [as it is for them with the Coptic Orthodox Church].[/quote]

Or the Coptic Catholic Church.

Peace be with you,

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1255266' date='Apr 24 2007, 12:23 PM']Hi, Reza,

Sad to say, some are blind to the implications that historical facts have upon their theology. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Mt 13:9).

[color="#FF0000"]It could be that some are blind, but others have actual concerns and problems and can't be put into such a protestant box.[/color]

How about the Byzantine Catholic Church, or the Maronite Catholic Church, or the Coptic Catholic Church, or any of the 22 Churches (23 counting the Roman rite) that together constitute the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church? Are they biblical, in your opinion?

[color="#FF0000"]Depends on the church, the Coptic Catholic Church [for example] was affirmed to replace the Coptic Orthodox Church, for it's rejection of Chalcedon [which was proven to have been factually inaccurate of the doctrines of the Coptic Orthodox Church]. Therefore replacing it with a clone, is wrong. You can't replace the original church that St. Mark founded, just because everyone in Egypt [not just the clergy but nearly every] disagrees with you, and through military force you keep them from telling the truth, etc.[/color]

Orthodoxy fails to follow the biblical teaching on the primacy of Peter, the Chief of the Apostles and head of the one united, universal (Catholic) and Apostolic Church.

[color="#FF0000"]That's your interpretation of history, but not nearly universal [which is why Protestants have a huge problem with the Roman Catholic Church].[/color]

I considered the Orthodox before I became a Catholic. But in addition to the disagreement over who is in charge of the Church, they have caved in on certain moral issues they held firmly to for centuries.

[color="#FF0000"]Coptic Orthodox NEVER held to the supremacy of the Roman Catholic Patriarch. As I'd pointed out, St. Clement was the head dude of his era, and yet he was Coptic. St. Anthanasious [who wrote the Nicene Creed] was also Coptic, among many others. The "Coptic Catholic" Church was a clone, created by Roman because the entire population of Egypt massively rejected Rome and the Council of Chalcedon.[/color]

I also couldn’t accept the ethnic divisions within Orthodoxy. I had to choose among the autonomous Russian, Greek, Ukrainian, Coptic, or other Orthodox Churches.

[color="#FF0000"]This is a large misconception: Orthodox doesn't put faith in Ethnicity, this is like saying that the Roman Catholic Church puts emphisis on Europeans. History lesson: St. Mark brought the truth of Jesus Christ to the Egyptians. Coptic means "Egyptian", St. Mark didn't try and change their culture but rather adapted their culture around the message. The only difference in liturgy between the Ethopian Orthodox [for example] and the Coptic Orthodox is the language and instrumentation, etc. This doesn't mean that Copts or Ethopians are "superior" as God doesn't care, the reason that it hasn't been changed is that the Apostles gave it to us as such, and we don't believe in changing the traditions, even the slightest bit, so we keep them the same.

Romans is also a race, Chaldeon also refers to an ethnic group [both submitting to the Roman Catholic Pope]. It doesn't mean that there is spiritual significance to these ethnic groups. I'm not racially Egyptian, yet I'm not considered "lessor" of a person spiritually. St. Moses the Etheopian is one of our most honored Saints and he's racially not Egyptian but he's Coptic [was a Monk in the Desert]. The Russian Orthodox Church was founded in Russia, amongst Russians, so why wouldn't it involve their culture? The Greek Orthodox Church was founded amongst Greeks, so why wouldn't it involve Greek Culture [Fun Fact: Most Christian Palestinians are Greek Orthodox]? The Apostles didn't seek to massively abolish every culture of the people, in order to minister but "baptized" the culture.[/color]

They're too identified and integrated with the governments of those countries, IMHO.

[color="#FF0000"]This also is very far from the truth: Syriac Orthodox [persecuted by their muslim governments], Coptic Orthodox [persecuted by their muslim government], Russian Orthodox [persecuted by the communists], and the list goes on... What do you think the Roman and Byzintine Crusades were trying to do? They were trying to use military force to get people to follow their agenda [religious and political]. Now it goes without saying that the Christians have had a posetive impact of such government secular institutions. Why wouldn't it? The Saints of Jesus Christ during the 3rd century had an impact of Diocletian's government too [caused him to go insane, as ridding the government of him].[/color]

The Church needs a center of unity -- the Pope, our Papa, the successor to St. Peter. This is the biblical model of the one unified Church.

[color="#FF0000"]We'd disagree with this and say that the unity factor is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the head of our church, not a man.[/color]

Condemned? Limbo, which was pure theological speculation and neither doctrine nor Sacred Apostolic Tradition, was not condemnation but a state of perfect natural happiness.

[color="#FF0000"]It was largely accepted by the Roman Catholic Church [as this pope and other popes have stated over and over again] and was formally discontinued. It was a tradition in itself, that was discontinued. Copts [among the rest of the Orthodox] don't speculate, because that causes problems [and that's a large problem that Protestants have with Roman Catholics]. If it's a "mystery" then leave it as a Mystery.[/color]

Limbo, as Raphael said, is not now and never was a doctrine. It was the speculation of some theologians. Be careful what you read in the media, who always gets it wrong when reporting the activities of the Catholic Church. Go to an official Catholic source.

[color="#FF0000"]I don't go strictly by the Media, I read the Pope's own Words, I read Roman Catholics own Words and base it upon that but again... why speculate with something such as baby's going to heaven or hell? Jesus Christ made it very clear that little children could come to him, why even use such a widespread speculation that suggests otherwise? You might say that it was never "an official doctrine of the church" but it was wide spread enough that everyone knew what the Pope was talking about when he abolished it![/color]

The Church's name is not Roman Catholic. It is simply, the Church. Or, the Catholic Church. Roman is only one of the many rites of the Church.

[color="#FF0000"]No Roman Catholic Church referrs to those that see the Roman Patriarch as "supreme" and follow such teachings. "The Church" is the united Church of Jesus Christ prior to the Schism. After the Schism, the Roman Church declared itself to be "supreme" and "the church" but definately isn't in agreement with the rest of the rites, including nearly every single one of the other rites that the Apostles themselves formed![/color]

The Church wrote the NT. The term 'Catholic' was first mentioned in writing by St. Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrnaeans c. A.D. 107, who probably learned it from his teachers and mentors, the Apostles: “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” (Notice that Ignatius didn't say, 'there is the Orthodox Church.')

[color="#FF0000"]Notice that St. Ignatius was also not Roman Catholic, didn't have Apostolic Succession of the Roman See and yet had considerable amount of "weight" regardless of Roman's thoughts at the time! I agree with the term "Catholic" and "The Church", I just don't agree with your defintion of Rome's supremacy. As I'd mentioned, I believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the church [as it's written in the orthodox doctrines]. I like that you say "he didn't use the word orthodox" because that was just a stab with not much theological backing. Just because he didn't use the term "orthodox" doesn't prove nothing, by St. Ignatious being Antiochian thou, it does prove that the Supremacy of the Roman Catholic Church wasn't always held. The Roman Catholic Church didn't write the NT, didn't compile it, but rather the whole church pre-schism [in which Rome likes to take credit for but would be more properly credited to those in the Oriental Orthodox Church historically].[/color]

Please provide the cites for the rites you mention. I’d be interested in reading them.

[color="#FF0000"]Read Isaiah 19![/color]

Yes, the Catholic Church certainly acknowledges that the Eastern Churches are her sisters and works diligently for reunification. Pray for the unity of the once undivided Churches! As JPII said, there's plenty of blame on both sides of the Great Schism.

[color="#FF0000"]Agreed![/color]

I’m glad to know that. Most Protestant I’ve met don’t have a clue, nor did I when I was Protestant.

[color="#FF0000"]You're probably right, particularly in the past, that most typical protestants used to not know much, but you'd be surprised at the grips that is going to Protestant Bible Colleges, now... etc. that even after studying history don't agree with the Roman Catholic Church, etc.[/color]


I refer you to John Henry Newman’s book, [i]An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.[/i] Newman (an Anglican priest) was set on proving that the Catholic Church was not the church of history. When his research and his book were finished, he put down his pen, called a priest, and became a Catholic.
Or the Coptic Catholic Church.

[color="#FF0000"]That's almost my story, except that I didn't come to the same conclusion. I was Protestant [kinda thru force of my aunt and uncle] then rejected it [along with the rest of Christianity] because of the hypocracy [among other reasons], became Muslim [as was several of my sisters through foster] and then decided to study the Bible and Quran together, study history indepth [history of the compilation of the Bible, etc] and found that the Coptic Church was the path God had desired for me. I would probably never be Coptic Catholic because why would I want to be a clone, when I can be the real thing?[/color]

Peace be with you,

Likos

[color="#FF0000"]May God's mercy and blessings keep you. I just read your post about your leg situation and various medical problems... hope things are better now!

Reza[/color][/quote]

[Katholikos]

Sorry, Reza, but your commentary in red will not copy, so I can't respond to your last post.

Likos

[RezaMikhaeil]

hmmm... alright

[dairygirl4u2c]

is it true, to your knowledge, that the apocraphyal books, or the books that are disputed from hte OT with protestants, were inserted into the back of the bible when the bible was first put together late 300's? That's my understanding. Whether tehy were to be for edificaiton or actual scripture was ambiguous given the way they were treated. And they weren't ratified until Trent. (though I think technically none of them were officially)

ideas?

[Katholikos]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1256566' date='Apr 25 2007, 11:47 PM']is it true, to your knowledge, that the apocraphyal books, or the books that are disputed from hte OT with protestants, were inserted into the back of the bible when the bible was first put together late 300's? That's my understanding. Whether tehy were to be for edificaiton or actual scripture was ambiguous given the way they were treated. And they weren't ratified until Trent. (though I think technically none of them were officially)

ideas?[/quote]

You have been misinformed. The books that Protestants call apocryphal were canonized with the rest of the books, without any distinction whatsoever, and had the same recognition as Isaiah or the Gospel of John.

The Council of Trent [b][i]affirmed[/i][/b] the Vulgate edition of the Bible, published in 402, which was based on the list of Scriptures canonized by the Council of Rome in 382. The Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome, commissoned by Pope Damasus I, who presided at the Council of Rome.

QUOTE

Pope Damasus and the Council of Rome (AD 382)

Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun.

The order of the Old Testament books begins here:

Genesis, one book
Exodus, one book
Leviticus, one book
Numbers, one book
Deuteronomy, one book
Joshua Nave, one book
Judges, one book
Ruth, one book
Kings, four books [= 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings]
Paralipomenon, two books [= 1 & 2 Chronicles]
Psalms, one book

Solomon, three books:

Proverbs, one book
Ecclesiastes, one book
Canticle of Canticles, one book

Likewise:

Wisdom, one book [= Wisdom of Solomon]
Ecclesiasticus, one book [= Sirach]

Likewise the order of the Prophets:

Isaiah, one book
Jeremiah, one book [probably includes Baruch]
with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations
Ezekiel, one book
Daniel, one book
Hosea, one book
Micah, one book
Joel, one book
Obadiah, one book
Jonah, one book
Nahum, one book
Habakkuk, one book
Zephaniah, one book
Haggai, one book
Zechariah, one book
Malachi, one book

LIkewise the order of the histories:

Job, one book
Tobias, one book [= Tobit]
Esdras, two books [= Ezra & Nehemiah]
Esther, one book
Judith, one book
Maccabees, two books

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church supports.

Of the gospels:

according to Matthew, one book
according to Mark, one book
according to Luke, one book
according to John, one book.

The Epistles of Paul, in number fourteen:

to the Romans, one
to the Corinthians, two
to the Ephesians, one
to the Thessalonians, two
to the Galatians, one
to the Philippians, one
to the Colossians, one
to Timothy, two
to Titus, one
to Philemon, one
to the Hebrews, one

Likewise:

the Apocalypse of John, one book.
and the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Likewise the canonical epistles, in number seven:

of Peter the Apostle, two epistles
of James the Apostle, one epistle
of John the Apostle, one epistle
of another John, the presbyter, two epistles
of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle, one epistle.

The canon of the New Testament ends here.
END QUOTE
[Source: Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, sect. 84.]

The canon was again confirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419)
The Council of Carthage is recognized by Protestants as the official canonization date. Here is the decree:

QUOTE
COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE, A.D. 397

Canon 36 (or otherwise 47)[It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are:
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue [.Joshua], Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books, .Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, the Twelve Books of the prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias [Tobit], Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [Ezra, Nehemiah], two books of the Machabees. Moreover of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John. Thus {it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon, also that it may be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated.

Source: Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, p. 39-40

(Philip Schaff adds: Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.)

Source: Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XIV. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. (453).

Here's the Council of Trent: QUOTE

[url="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html"]http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html[/url]

COUNCIL OF TRENT – FOURTH SESSION

And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle. [b]But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.[/b]
END QUOTE

(bold added)

Since I converted the Greek names into the more familiar Hebrew in the list from the Council of Rome, I didn't always do it for Carthage or Trent. BTW, the Council of Florence, 1445, also named the canonized Scriptures, a century before Trent.

As I said in my first post in this thread, it is a Protestant myth that the Church added books at the Council of Trent. The Scriptures that the Church canonized in A.D. 382, 393, 397, and 419, which were confirmed by Pope Innocent I in 405, and are contained in the Vulgate, are identical to the table of contents of the Catholic Bible today.

Likos