[NYer]

Mark P. Shea is a convert to the Catholic Church and a popular writer and speaker.  He is the author of Making Senses Out of Scripture:  Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did; By What Authority?: An Evangelical         Discovers Catholic Tradition, and; This is My Body: An Evangelical         Discovers the Real Presence

[AnAmericanMother]

Funny!

My daughter had a NT Bible test today, and last night we were discussing precisely this issue!

Glad that I'm in basic agreement with Mr. Shea . . . hope we're both in agreement with the NT Bible teacher. (Talk about longevity - this man taught ME NT Bible back in 1973, and is still teaching at the same high school, only now he has a doctorate in Theology . . . he was a young whipper snapper when I was in his class! < g >)

[A.A. Cunningham]

Shea needs to discover Consulenti Tibi written by Pope St. Innocent I in 405 AD.

[whispering out loud]

The Catholic church may have canonized the scriptures, but that doesn't necessarily mean that tradition gave us the Bible. Long before the Catholic church existed the Old Testament was canonized by the Jewish faith. Up through the rule of Diocletian the scriptures still existed separately according not to Catholic history but public record. The emperor "Dio" was having the scrolls of the scriptures destroyed along side of the faithful followers of Christ's teachings who had them. With the change of rule to Constantine he embraced Christianity because of his vision of the cross "In this sign conquer". With his acceptance of Christianity came the canonization of the scriptures at which point they were translated into the Latin Vulgate which common men could not read for themselves. So men had to rely solely upon the priest to interpret the scriptures for them, which is by the way against the word itself. "Study to show thyself approved, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God." So if indeed Tradition gave us the scriptures it wasn't necessarily a good thing, because they were for all men to read, not just for the priest, or the select few.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"How Tradition Gave Us the Bible"

Correction: God gave us the Bible.


Question: Did John the Baptist "give" us the Messiah?

[Paul C. Jesup]

How Tradition Gave Us the Bible

That is a lie. The creation of the bible and the federalization of chirstanity in the Roman Empire was done so to consolidate power by the Roman Emperor.

It was done for political reasons, not tradition judeo-chirstian reasons.

[sanormal]

"The canon of Scripture did not assume its present shape till the end of the fourth century. It was defined at the regional Councils of Carthage and Hippo and also by Pope Damasus and included the deuterocanonical books. It is worth noting, however, that, because these decisions were regional, none of them were dogmatically binding on the whole Church, though they clearly reflected the Sacred Tradition of the Church (which is why the Vulgate or Latin Bible--which was The Bible for the Catholic Church in the West for the next 1200 years looks the same as the Catholic Bible today)."

For readers, this is an oversimplification.

There were many translations of the Scriptures, already in the 3rd century. Tertullian testifies to a Latin translation of the whole Bible. St. Cyprian adhered to this early Latin version in all his works. Apparently, Africa adopted Latin in Liturgy and Scripture much earlier than did Rome.

Hippolytus of Rome compiled an early list of the New Testament, preserved in the Muratorian Fragment, the earliest known Christian Canon. The Muratorian Canon was compiled shortly after 155 AD in Rome.

By the late 4th century, there was much debate about the canonicity of certain texts and the excellence of others.

Amidst this crisis, a Spanish deacon becomes Bishop of Rome and calls the greatest linguist of his day to be his secretary, Jerome. Wishing to send missionaries to Europe armed with a translation of the Bible in the common tongue, Damasus commissions Jerome to create a new version of the Bible using the best original language texts of the day. Jerome begins his work on the Latin Vulgate.

Jerome's letters to Damasus testify to the debate regarding which texts to include in his new translation.

Damasus, wishing to settle the matter, calls a synod in Rome, at which Jerome is present, and issues a Decree. The Decree of Damasus is the first prescriptive Christian canon issued by an episcopal authority for the purpose of settling the debate for the entire Church.

The Decree is promulgated in 382 AD and received immediately in Africa at the Synods of Carthage and Hippo. The Canon used by the Catholic Church is that which was decreed by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD.

The Decree of Damasus may be found in, "The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. I," pg 406; Denzinger 179-180. For more on early versions of the Scriptures, Damasus & Jerome see, "Patrology," J. Quasten Vol. II pg 209ff & Vol. IV pg 273ff.

[Cvengr]

I rejoice to understand how other believers are more fully sanctified in time through continuing faith.

The the case of the RCC, I understand how Scripture manifests a sanctification process for all believers in God through faith in Christ. Beginning with the mustard seed of salvific faith, the Holy Spirit grows that faith within us. As we remain in fellowship with Him, again through faith, that thinking in our souls is imparted to the spirit by the Holy Spirit to continue our sanctification. Again, through faith this occurs and is translated in the Greek as another form of faith, namely doctrine in our thinking or souls.

As the Church, or body of believers, all who are members of the royal priesthood of God through Christ, we continue to be sanctified through faith and doctrine.

Every believer has equal opportunity for continued sanctification. We are fortunate to have so much doctrine available to us today for our continued study, but just as our forefathers, that study and thinking must always flow through our continued fellowship with God through faith.

I rejoice when I observe indications that many RCC brethren and leadership continue to provide doctrine to their flock.

Those who become preoccupied in judging mistaken perceptions, easily fall out of fellowship, but those who remain in fellowship through faith, are not harmed by those pushing mistaken perceptions, rather their perseverence in faith will be counted for greater rewards at the bema seat.

I can understand how many might be divided in the title and many positions advanced in the article, but that is for nothingness. More blessed are those who remain perseverant in faith. I rejoice when I observe even indications that the perseverant remain in the Church, even when some advance false doctrines, which will not remove those who remain faithful to the Father through faith in Christ.

[HarleyD]

It's still a jolt for some people to realize this, but the Bible did not fall down out of the sky

The Church that believes the bread and wine turns into the actual blood and flesh of Christ and yet does not believe that God gave us His word. Now that is what is surprising.

[Aquinasfan]

Written Tradition bump.

[trisham]

bookmark

[Sloth]

Why would the Catholic church canonize a Bible that clearly condemns some of their practices (e.g., I Timothy 3:2, 4-5)?

[nmh]

This is sheer blasphemy!

The Bible says otherwise:

2Tim.3:16

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Again, we have fallible mortals trying to take credit for what God clearly gave to us.

People should be ashamed to even think this let alone parrot it like utter fools.

[nmh]

I woulnd't buy anything from him!

If he can't even get it straight WHO gave us the Bible, I wouldn't trust him with anything. He's a blasphemer!

2Tim.3:16

[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

[AnalogReigns]

What the author fails to admit though is even the term "deuterocanonical" means "secondary canon"....meaning that before Trent all Christians agreed these books had secondary importance and authority, and the name still used today reflects that. Should they be bound up in the same book as the canonical scriptures? That was the issue.

The Roman Church hadn't finalized whether to include those books or not until Luther took the scholarly side of the debate and recognized them as not inspired and inerrent like the cannonical books...a position many Roman Catholic scholars shared with him at the time AND before the Reformation. But hey, when Luther took a position on something BAM, he MUST be wrong, so the RC curia took the opposite opinion in Trent, contra past competing traditions.

Just read Tobit, and honestly tell me its NOT a fairy tale.

The deuterocanonical books are nothing like the character of inspired scripture, though still useful to understand the ancient Hebrews and the culture of bible times.