why did catholics have there own Bible?

[verywellsaid]

can anyone explain why?

[janine]

Why should not any group have its own Bible?

[DCR]

can anyone explain why?

I guess for the same reasons why the Protestants have their own Bible(s), and the Orthodox have their own Bible(s), etc.

[Jaime]

What distinguishes the Catholic Bible? Is it only the inclusion of the Aprochryphal (sp) books? Also why were those books de-canonized by the protestants? Those books were included in the 1611 King James Bible.

[desertknight]

We don't have our own version of the Bible, we have the original Christian version.  The books called the Apocrypha by Protestants, were not included by the Catholic Church, as there was no Christian Bible in existence without them until the Reformation.  As the poster above mentions, even the KJV included them until the AD1800's.  No complete Hebrew cannon of the Old Testament existed until the AD 200's, it was not used by Christians until the Reformation and it is a bit problematic as claiming that it is solely inspired version of the OT, as the Jewish compilers of it, were rabidly anti-Christian and rejected any Christian Gospel writings as blasphemous and worthless.  The Vulgate is an early Fifth Century version of the Bible in Latin and largely the result of the labors of a priest named Jerome, who was commissioned by Pope Damasus I in 382 to make a revision of old Latin translations. It became the definitive and officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.  No Protestant edition of the Bible would exist until over 1,000 years after the Vulgate.

Timeline of the decisions on the books of the Biblical canon

AD 51-125: The New Testament books are written.

AD 200: The periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

AD 367: The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D..

382 --Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.  

393 A.D. --the Council of Hippo,  which began "arguing it out." Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

AD 397: The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by ...

787 A.D. The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.

AD 1442: At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon.  This is 100 years before the Reformation.

AD 1536:  In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

The Vulgate Bible, which was the officially accepted version of the Christian Bible for over 1,000 years, was the source text used for many translations of the Bible into vernacular languages. In English, the interlinear translation of the Lindisfarne Gospels as well as other Old English Bible translations, the translation of John Wycliffe, the Douay-Rheims Bible, the Confraternity Bible, and Ronald Knox’s translation were all made from the Vulgate.  Any Protestant edition of the Bible, including those that claim not to use the same source material as the Catholic Church, still, have inevitably relied on the Catholic Church's biblical compilations and the only canon of Holy Scripture that any Christian knew for over 1,500 years.  Most people have no idea of the huge amount of extra-canonical, and sometimes, perfectly orthodox and legitimate, scriptural texts that exist, that the Church, exercising her authority, decided not to include in the Biblical canon.  The important thing to keep in mind, is that any version of the Bible you read, is a result of the Magisterium, the authority of the Bishops and Priests of the Catholic Church, exercising their power to "bind and loose", as the shepard's of the flock, the earthly representatives of our Lord, Jesus Christ, to determine what was considered the canon of the Christian Bible.    

 

 

[papist1]

can anyone explain why?

Every bible was "catholic" previous to the reformation period in the 16th century. They all had 73 books.

The real question is, why are there any Bibles with 66 books and strange translations outside of the original catholic canon decided in 382ad under pope damasus?

peace, papist

[verywellsaid]

if catholics don't have their own bible,why is it that they put idols inside their churches, it's a clear disobedience in the ten commandments?

[desertknight]

if catholics don't have their own bible,why is it that they put idols inside their churches, it's a clear disobedience in the ten commandments?

We do not have any "idols" in our churches.  You do not understand what an "idol" is, but that is a different topic and one that has been covered extensively before...

On Catholic/Orthodox Icons and Images-http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php/topic,36813.0.html

[Fallen Knight]

I myself have always found it strange that Protestants claim they rejected the Septugint version of the Catholic Old Testament and claimed the "Hebrew" version. ( Even though the Hebrew cannon was not closed until after Christ, and by half of those very same people who deny Christ and still do. ( The other half were wiped out in the Jewish revolt )

Now the very same verse of scripture that quotes Jesus supposedly denying traditions of men is an interesting point. This very same verse from the new testament that both Catholics and Protestants share, is actually Jesus quoting from Isiah.

And yet if the protestants were true to their claim of denying the Septugint as inspired scripture, they would deny this verse from Jesus.

Why?

Because it is in only "1" version of scripture that the verse from Isiah uses the word "traditions".............and that is in the Septugint. In the Hebrew version of the old testament, Isiah is translated "as by rote"

Jesus from quoting from a version of scripture that the Protestants claim is uninspired.

And you ask who has the right Bible???

[Magnificat]

can anyone explain why?

I think the real question is why did Protestants decide to have their own Bible?  The Catholic Church was the first true so whoever came after are the ones who made the alteration.

So why do Protestants have their own Biblble.

Because Luther came up with his own theology independent of the Bible and so proceeded to change the Bible to suit his theology instead of allowing the Bible to speak for itself.

[Ave Maria]

What I want to know is why Protestants have their own Bible.  Catholics have the same Bible that has been used since the early Church, Protestants do not.  Martin Luther removed the deuterocanonicals from the Bible.

[banished]

What I want to know is why Protestants have their own Bible.  Catholics have the same Bible that has been used since the early Church, Protestants do not.  Martin Luther removed the deuterocanonicals from the Bible.

Hello Ave Maria,

This is off the top of my head, but I always thought that the King James Version of the Bible along with Henry the Eighth being excommunicated were the real motivation for England gaining their independence.  England really prospered after that.  I am anchored to the King James Version, and I never trust the modern Bibles like the Catholics New American Bible (with foot notes) that are supposed to be in everyday modern American language.  I use the Jimmy Swaggart Reference Edition, and I always start with his Comments at the beginning of each book. Nowadays, it's just not practical to completely exclude the Protestants, and Brother Swaggart is my favorite Protestant.  He really has an interesting point of view, but of course, his comments are only his point of view.  In my opinion, the Old English text in the King James Version is definitely equally inspired with Latin on the Catholic side.

For what ever reason, God gave the Protestants the King James Bible.