This is an excerpt from an argument made in a forum between some none Catholics and the creator of this blog, Gabrielmary Ken Alimba (me):
In reply to the question above, I replied:
Of course the Catholic Church DID !
Note that the Bible is not in itself a BOOK, but A COLLECTION of books. These books were compiled by different scholars according to the directives and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. These books were GATHERED and CANONIZED by the Catholic Church in the Council of Rome in AD 382. It was by the Church's Authority, under the Pontificate of Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384)that the Bible we have today came to be bound together as one. The person who created this thread jumped too far mentioning "bible" everywhere, forgetting that these books were initially gathered before it was rendered into different languages by other scribes and scholars; that these books were in different scrolls and papyrus, and after the BINDING and CANONIZATION became known as THE BIBLE.
The thread was just a "copy and paste" work, with apparently little appreciation of history, punctuated by an incurable bias. Everyone who looks at history with a clear mind, recognizes the role the Catholic Church (Now Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic i.e. Western and Eastern Churches respectively) played in the proclamation and preservation of the Good news till today.
It is most laughable that People who live in 2012, think they know FOR CERTAIN what happened over 2000 years ago. I do not say i am certain either. But as reasonable men (if we actually are) when we are faced with two contrasting data about one particular historical issue, we are meant to go into serious research and not simply choose which one suits our taste and quickly jump out of our ignorance-soaked pillow and declare with other ignoramuses before us "We know 100 BCE" as though we were there.
Only people who willfully choose lies hide themselves from the Catholic Church's rays which penetrates even secular history and development.
There are many other things the Catholic Church gave YOUR (OTHER Churches)Church:
- Going to Church on Sunday (Came from the Catholic Church in the Council of Laodicea, c. A.D. 337, You can find it in Canon 29 of the Council)
- Celebrating Christmas ( Introduced first by Emperor Constantine and then made Universal by the Authority of Pope Julius I in 320 AD)
- Celebration of Easter came as a diversion from the Pagan Worship of the Ancient people of ANCIENT Rome. The Church began to celebrate it as the Day of Christ's resurrection (The Day of the Lord)
- Rings at weddings (Which was an ancient pagan symbol, Christianized by the Catholic Church around AD 860)
Men... Any Church man who denies the INDISPENSABILITY of the Catholic Church in the handing down of Christian texts, traditions and morals, is either biased (and We pray for them), ignorant (and we wish they learn) or just a self-made dummy (and this has no cure).
I pray Nigerians begin to watch the white men argue, even those with conflicting points acknowledge historical data. Here in Nigeria Pentecostals simply HIDE their faces when they see "Catholic" and "Good" together, they capitalize on "Catholic" and a tentative "Bad" and from there create many illogical statements that only reveal their biases.
To which a non Catholic replied:
Quoting me: These books were GATHERED and CANONIZED by the Catholic Church in the Council of Rome in AD 382. It was by the Church's Authority, under the Pontificate of Pope Damasus I (AD 366-384)that the Bible we have today came to be bound together as one. . . .
In Reply to the bolded He said:
FALSE! The Roman Catholic Church only fools ignorant people with this falsehood.
First of all, waaaay before there was such a thing as "The Catholic Church" Origen and others had already put together all the books that make up today's Bible. They were already preserved. smiley
Second, the claims about Damasus is another falsehood; in fact a fraud. Look, even Roman Catholic defenders here have been very careful not to use the Damasus falsehood. Their argument is based on the African synods of Hippo and Carthage. I assume it is because they know that the fraudulent claims about Damasus can be easily exposed. wink
To which i finally replied:
Why did the name "Catholic Church" come to be? Is it not because of people who would fight Orthodoxy in the name of being touched by the Holy Spirit or even sometimes knowing better than an entire council of over 300 LEARNED AND HOLY BISHOPS. These men (like Arius and other heretics) founded their own churches so there was need to differentiate between "small-sect churches" and the "Universal" Church. The Universal Church remains the Rock from which these crumbs (other smaller churches) have fallen. Only this Church has direct trace back to the Apostles (with the Orthodox Church of the East). If you say this is false, then i ask you, is it the Redeemed Christian Church? Or Christ Embassy? Or SCOAN?
IF you say none, i ask you, was there a time in history when Christianity VANISHED and resurfaced?
There is no point arguing over obvious facts, Rome was the foundation of Christianity being the first great Empire to give the Christian message a place in their land (after the active persecution by Emperor Nero and passive persecution of successors), from thence it spread throughout the world, which is the simplest explanation why Rome remains the Headquarters of the Catholic (Universal) Church.
Apostolicity is one of the KEY signs of the true Church, none is found in other Churches (though this does not mean they are not of God at all, but they have none of the Magisterial Authority of the Apostles)
Some of you here who claim to be scholars are guilty of blaspheming history. Reading texts written by individuals whose personal lives are unknown to you. When you wish to study, strike a balance b/w authors/historians you love (in this case people who HATE the Catholic Church) and Historians you HATE (in this case those who were Catholics or at least people who have written without obvious bias).
I Do not claim to know more than anyone, i only wish to pass on a vital message: In historical disputes, don't claim to be TOO certain, even when you meet a contrasting (but HISTORICAL) data. Such opposing data was also written like yours, widely read and believed like yours, have names and dates like yours. So how are you certain which between yours and the other is correct?
You cannot judge history from hatred of the Most Ancient Christian Community, Can you?