RCC Catechism is full compilation of the full Word of God

[TrinitarianScience]

There are three arms of the Word of God known as the Tripod Balance of Truth. They are the Tradition that reflects God the Father; the Bible, God the Son; and the Magisterium (Magisterial Teachings), God the Holy Spirit. "Trinitarian Science", the pure science about God has made this now scientifically justified - an absolute truth. Tradition, Bible, and Magisterial Teaching are what are used to construct the building blocks of nature across the universe. Since the time of Christ, the Tradition and Magisterium have dominated the Christian space and ruled for 1500 years before the first Bible was manufactured for public use in 1546. The Bible had been extremely scarce. The CCB Catechism is relevant. Christ taught Tradition but the Apostles and Disciples wrote the Bible (New Testament).

 

[BobRyan]

For many centuries the Bible was on the "list of forbidden books" in some parts of the world --- at least having it in your own language - one you could read.

 

[BobRyan]

Notice that in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught by the Apostle Paul - were SO"

And those Bereans in Acts 17 were not Christians. In other words non-Christians can do this sola-scriptura test and come to the right answer even in cases when their own church/denomination magisterium had already come out in condemnation of the doctrine of Paul

Mark 7:7-13 shows Christ using this same sola-scriptura testing principle to slam hammer the supposedly infallible traditions of the Magisterium in his day. The magisterium of the one true nation church started by God at Sinai

 

[Valletta]

For many centuries the Bible was on the "list of forbidden books" in some parts of the world --- at least having it in your own language - one you could read.

Interesting. I know Muslims frown upon the Bible. In the days before the printing press a Catholic monastery might just own one Bible. Catholic priests at a monastery would have to memorize large portions of Biblical texts before being sent out to preach the Gospel. Going back even further, after Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. There were English translations of Biblical text long before Tyndale.

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting. I know Muslims frown upon the Bible.

Certainly we have seen that.

from: Index Librorum Prohibitorum - Wikipedia

"The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (English: Index of Forbidden Books) was a changing list of publications deemed heretical or contrary to morality by the Sacred Congregation of the Index (a former Dicastery of the Roman Curia); Catholics were forbidden to print or read them, subject to the local bishop.[1] Catholic states could enact laws to adapt or adopt the list and enforce it.​

​

The Index was active from 1560 to 1966."​

The prohibited list consisted of "editions and translations of the Bible that had not been approved. Editions of the Index also contained the rules of the Church relating to the reading, selling, and preemptive censorship of books."

In the days before the printing press a Catholic monastery might just own one Bible. Catholic priests at a monastery would have to memorize large portions of Biblical texts before being sent out to preach the Gospel. Going back even further, after Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible

We are talking about the centuries from 1560 to 1966.

There were English translations of Biblical text long before Tyndale.

For how many centuries was it forbidden to own a bible in your own language that was written in French, Spanish, English, German... turns out that is quite a long time - and had nothing to do with Islam. How many people put in prison or put to death for owning a bible in their own language?

 

[Valletta]

We are talking about the centuries from 1560 to 1966.

For how many centuries was it forbidden to own a bible in your own language that was written in French, Spanish, English, German... turns out that is quite a long time - and had nothing to do with Islam. How many people put in prison or put to death for owning a bible in their own language?

I am most familiar with Catholic English translations. Catholics could face torture or death for distributing the English Douay-Rheims Bible in England. But not because it was in English, but because it was a CATHOLIC bible. Yet Catholics continued to try and get the Bible to the people of England. Back in the old days heresy sometimes ended up in a death sentence depending on the religion of the king or queen. Protestants killed Catholics, Catholics killed Protestants. This was the situation in Ireland for a long time, I met one lady who had no animosity toward Protestants but said as a young girl she didn't understand why the Protestants chained the doors of the church so they had to say mass outside in the wind, rain, and cold. Protestants altered many Bibles, often putting in anti-Catholic rhetoric, the Bible is the book of the Catholic Church and Catholics were not to read altered versions. It got so bad in Spain with altered Bibles that in one area, for a period of time the bishop banned Bibles because there were so many altered versions in circulation. There were numerous versions of Catholic Bibles in various languages from 1560 to 1966, I believe the Douay-Rheims was the most popular English version for some time. I try and only use Wikipedia for non-controversial subjects, I don't think the actual versions are a controversial subject, for the time period you are interested here are some excerpts:

The New Testament portion was published in Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament portion was published in two volumes twenty-seven years later in 1609 and 1610 by the University of Douai. The first volume, covering Genesis to Job, was published in 1609; . . . this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions of 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate "apocrypha"), in 1750. . . . Challoner's New Testament was, however, extensively revised by Bernard MacMahon in a series of Dublin editions from 1783 to 1810.

Douay–Rheims Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have the family Catholic Bible passed down, with the name of my grandfather written with the date of his birth, from the latter 1800s.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Interesting. I know Muslims frown upon the Bible. In the days before the printing press a Catholic monastery might just own one Bible. Catholic priests at a monastery would have to memorize large portions of Biblical texts before being sent out to preach the Gospel. Going back even further, after Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. There were English translations of Biblical text long before Tyndale.

Muslims do not "frown upon the Bible". They believe it is the very word of God on the same plane as the Q'ran. The problem, in their view, is that Christians altered the text of the Bible to support such heresies as the idea that God begat a human son by Mary. Also, the very idea that God could die is utterly absurd and was obviously (in Muslim eyes) altered from the original text of the Bible.

Their problem, which is a highly significant one, is that they have been completely unable to produce any unaltered manuscript of the inspired text of the Bible.

I am most familiar with Catholic English translations. Catholics could face torture or death for distributing the English Douay-Rheims Bible in England. But not because it was in English, but because it was a CATHOLIC bible. Yet Catholics continued to try and get the Bible to the people of England. Back in the old days heresy sometimes ended up in a death sentence depending on the religion of the king or queen. Protestants killed Catholics, Catholics killed Protestants. This was the situation in Ireland for a long time, I met one lady who had no animosity toward Protestants but said as a young girl she didn't understand why the Protestants chained the doors of the church so they had to say mass outside in the wind, rain, and cold. Protestants altered many Bibles, often putting in anti-Catholic rhetoric, the Bible is the book of the Catholic Church and Catholics were not to read altered versions. It got so bad in Spain with altered Bibles that in one area, for a period of time the bishop banned Bibles because there were so many altered versions in circulation. There were numerous versions of Catholic Bibles in various languages from 1560 to 1966, I believe the Douay-Rheims was the most popular English version for some time. I try and only use Wikipedia for non-controversial subjects, I don't think the actual versions were be controversial, for the time period you are interested here are some excerpts:

The New Testament portion was published in Reims, France, in 1582, in one volume with extensive commentary and notes. The Old Testament portion was published in two volumes twenty-seven years later in 1609 and 1610 by the University of Douai. The first volume, covering Genesis to Job, was published in 1609; . . . this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions of 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. . . . Challoner's New Testament was, however, extensively revised by Bernard MacMahon in a series of Dublin editions from 1783 to 1810.

Douay–Rheims Bible - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I have the family Catholic Bible passed down, with the name of my grandfather written with the date of his birth, from the latter 1800s.

 

[Valletta]

Muslims do not "frown upon the Bible". They believe it is the very word of God on the same plane as the Q'ran. The problem, in their view, is that Christians altered the text of the Bible to support such heresies as the idea that God begat a human son by Mary. Also, the very idea that God could die is utterly absurd and was obviously (in Muslim eyes) altered from the original text of the Bible.

Their problem, which is a highly significant one, is that they have been completely unable to produce any unaltered manuscript of the inspired text of the Bible.

I am not going to quibble, perhaps you prefer the words "invalid" and "untrustworthy" as in this article from a year or so ago:

At the same time, however, they dismiss the Bible as being invalid and untrustworthy. Muslims explain this inconsistency by charging that the present Bible is not the same as the Scriptures referred to in the Qur'an; they claim that the text has become so "corrupted" that the original Scriptures must be considered lost.

What is the Muslim View of the Bible?

The attitude of Muslims toward the Bible is enigmatic, to say the least.

www2.cbn.com

 

[bbbbbbb]

I am not going to quibble, perhaps you prefer the words "invalid" and "untrustworthy" as in this article from a year or so ago:

At the same time, however, they dismiss the Bible as being invalid and untrustworthy. Muslims explain this inconsistency by charging that the present Bible is not the same as the Scriptures referred to in the Qur'an; they claim that the text has become so "corrupted" that the original Scriptures must be considered lost.

What is the Muslim View of the Bible?

The attitude of Muslims toward the Bible is enigmatic, to say the least.

www2.cbn.com

That is quite true. The conundrum is that, although Muslims profess to believe in a Bible which they cannot find (nor can it be found because it never existed) they do, most certainly, frown upon the Bible as it actually exists.

 

[The Liturgist]

Certainly we have seen that.

from: Index Librorum Prohibitorum - Wikipedia

"The Index Librorum Prohibitorum (English: Index of Forbidden Books) was a changing list of publications deemed heretical or contrary to morality by the Sacred Congregation of the Index (a former Dicastery of the Roman Curia); Catholics were forbidden to print or read them, subject to the local bishop.[1] Catholic states could enact laws to adapt or adopt the list and enforce it.​

​

The Index was active from 1560 to 1966."​

The prohibited list consisted of "editions and translations of the Bible that had not been approved. Editions of the Index also contained the rules of the Church relating to the reading, selling, and preemptive censorship of books."




We are talking about the centuries from 1560 to 1966.


For how many centuries was it forbidden to own a bible in your own language that was written in French, Spanish, English, German... turns out that is quite a long time - and had nothing to do with Islam. How many people put in prison or put to death for owning a bible in their own language?

This post is quite incorrect, for the reasons cited by @Valletta , and id the SDA is actually teaching its members that the RCC prohibited vernacular Bibles from the period 1560-1966, they are spreading an obvious and deeply distressing falsehood. I know of at least four English language Bibles approved by the RCC during that timeframe (the Douai Rheims, the Challoner Douai Rheims, the Jerusalem Bible and the Knox Bible, which I particularly like).

 

[The Liturgist]

Interesting. I know Muslims frown upon the Bible. In the days before the printing press a Catholic monastery might just own one Bible. Catholic priests at a monastery would have to memorize large portions of Biblical texts before being sent out to preach the Gospel. Going back even further, after Latin surpassed Greek as the common language of the people, the Latin Vulgate under the direction of Saint Jerome became by far the standard Bible. "Vulgate" comes from "vulgar" or "common," meaning the common language of the people. Eventually Latin morphed into various languages such as Italian, Spanish, and French, and then came more translations by Catholics. There were Catholic translations of Biblical text in French, Bohemian, Danish, Polish, Hungarian, and Norwegian as well. There were English translations of Biblical text long before Tyndale.

Also there were the Greek and Church Slavonic Bibles used by the Byzantine Rite Catholics, the Peshitta used by the Maronite and Chaldean Catholics, et cetera.

 

[RileyG]

I agree with the OP that Catholicism is fully biblical.

 

[RileyG]

Also there were the Greek and Church Slavonic Bibles used by the Byzantine Rite Catholics, the Peshitta used by the Maronite and Chaldean Catholics, et cetera.

This is true. I think many Eastern Catholics use the Orthodox Study Bible (OSB) which also includes 3 Maccabees as well as all of the canonical deuteron-canonical books.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I agree with the OP that Catholicism is fully biblical.

Oddly enough, I am hardly surprised.

 

[St_Worm2]

Tradition, Bible, and Magisterial Teaching are what are used to construct the building blocks of nature across the universe.

Hello TrinitarianScience, I have a number of questions for you about what you wrote in the OP, and I'd like to begin with the quote above. So, please explain what you mean.

Also, what was used "to construct the building blocks of nature across the universe" prior to the existence of "Tradition, Bible and Magisterial Teaching"?

Thanks

God bless you!!

--David

 

[RileyG]

Oddly enough, I am hardly surprised.

Study the early Church and formation of the canon of scripture.

 

[RileyG]

Hello TrinitarianScience, I have a number of questions for you about what you wrote in the OP, and I'd like to begin with the quote above. So, please explain what you mean.

Also, what was used "to construct the building blocks of nature across the universe" prior to the existence of "Tradition, Bible and Magisterial Teaching"?

Thanks

God bless you!!

--David

Hmmm….perhaps God’s revelation to humanity is what the universe is all about?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Study the early Church and formation of the canon of scripture.

Oddly enough, I have. I actually have examined the multiple narratives of various branches of the Christian faith, including your own. I do give the RCC great credit for possessing the chutzpah to elbow out the narrative of the EOC.

 

[RileyG]

Oddly enough, I have. I actually have examined the multiple narratives of various branches of the Christian faith, including your own. I do give the RCC great credit for possessing the chutzpah to elbow out the narrative of the EOC.

Interesting comment. Thanks for your response.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hmmm….perhaps God’s revelation to humanity is what the universe is all about?

Could be, I suppose? Hopefully TrinitarianScience will clear it up for us