A mere assertion which can only be sustained under the premise that only what the Roman church says regarding what Scripture, history and tradition can be correct in any challange to the contrary. For indeed, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Thus we have the classic recourse of no less than Cardinal Manning:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition.
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves... The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Thus it does not matter what historical research finds, of which even Catholic authors provided evidence against RC papal propaganda, as only what Rome says today is to be accepted as correct, as in cults.
Where did the table of contents of the Bible come from?
The same place vowel marks in the Hebrew OT came from, that of pious men seeking to help readers of wholly inspired Scripture.
The questions for you are,
1. What makes the TOC of the church of Rome 100% correct? Does being the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ mean that they are the infallible discerners and teachers of it?
2. If a TOC is such a weighty issue, then why did it take the church of Rome over 1400 years after the last book was penned to put an end to the scholarly doubts and disagreements over what the TOC should contain?
Where did God say "This is the Bible" ?
Lk. 24:44, in referencing the tripartite OT canon in validating His mission. But the complete Bible which you meant flows from that in principle, in which the very wholly inspired words of God were either directly written (the majority of Scripture) or consequently written after orally speaking them, and which often provided new revelation. In contrary, Rome does not speak as wholly inspired of God in declaring what she says tradition teaches, nor claim to provide new revelation. If you want to claim to be proclaiming the actual word of God as equal with Scripture then you need to be speaking the very wholly inspired words of God.
In addition, why did the Lord only quote OT Scripture, not oral tradition in declaring that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," (Matthew 4:4) and as authorative in refuting the religious leaders (Mt. 22, etc.) and in validating His mission to His disciples, and opened up their minds to Scripture? (Lk. 24:44,45) Other sources, even pagan ones, could be quoted by inspired believers as providing some Truth, but it was the wholly inspired written word of God that oral preaching of the word of God was subject to testing by, which itself was wholly inspired of God, not merely correct. And as per OT practice, the mode of preservation for what was binding was by writing. (Ex. 17:14; Dt 17:18; Jer. 30:2; 36:2 Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23)
As is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
Where did God tell Martin Luther to remove certain books from the Bible?
The same place He told him to provide these "certain books" in his non-binding Bible as he did as per ancient method, and told Jerome and other so-called "fathers" these certain books were not Scripture proper, and told the church of Rome to anathematize those who dissented from her canon, by a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstaining, a 44% majority. And to remove books other ancient tradition-centric churches hold to. The answer here pertains to questions 1 and 2 above.
These are serious questions. Please give specific answers.
These are serious questions. Please give specific answers.
There are two possible models here, and both have at least a superficial consistency.
As my old pastor used to say, “You pay your money and you take your choice.”
One is that a “piece” of the church went wrong and antiquity really IS bearing valid witness against it. Another is that (Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, you pick) is Right and everything else is Wrong.