If you see Historical Documents Showing Jesus Founded Only one Church &

[Tyler]

Catholica: "Wyclif, a Catholic, produced a corrupted translation of the scriptures.  Do you think that a person should read scriptures that have been wrongly translated and then proclaimed as inspired?  Perhaps you do.  But the Catholic Church insists on good translations, and corrupt translations should be burned lest anyone think they thy are actually the word of God when they are not.  For example: I would use the Message translation for kindling if I had one."

I note that you did not deny the mutilation of John Wyclif by the Catholic Church.
The peasant could not read and was instructed in church dogma. One reason Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the Pope's door. Pope Leo X was fleecing the flock by the sale of indulgences for the building of St. Peter's cathedral in Rome. Luther knew his peasants were being led to pay for the corrupt office of Albert of Brandenberg and that they were being taught to think of forgiveness in monetary terms. And you, Catholica, want to talk a bout Catholic interpretation of Scripture??   

There are three identifiable periods of development in the evolution of the cannon.
1. A.D. 30-150
    a.  The Old Testament, universally available in the LXX and including fourteen apocryphal
          books, was regarded as Scripture.
   
    b.   The writings of the Apostles and Prophets:
          The homologoumena (books universally recognized as Scripture from the very beginning):
          The four Gospels.
          Thirteen epistles of Paul.
          I Peter.
          I John.
          Acts.
          Revelation.

2. The antilegomena (books more or less opposed or questioned):
          Hebrews.
          II Peter.
          II, III John.
          James.
          Jude.
          Other books which were later proved noncanonical such as Barnabas, The shepherd of 
          Herms, the Didache, and the Gospel of the Hebrews.
         
    c.   Important literature, such as the letter of Clement of Rome to Corinth, was being circulated
         and used in the churches.

2. A.D. 150-200

    a.  The Church agrees on the need to "tighten up" their thinking in regard to the canon because
         of the threat of the heretical groups (such as Marcion who excluded books universally
         accepted.)

    b.  The antilegomena were examined and debated by scholars. In this period different books
         of the antilegomena were accepted in some areas and resisted in others.

3. A.D. 200-400

    a. Final agreement. The first canon extant which is exactly as we have it was published by
        Athanasius in A. D. 367. He was the first to use the word "canon."
   
    b. In A.D. 383, Jerome translated the Vulgate, following the canon accepted by Athanasius
        and almost all others. Once the Vulgate was accepted, the debate, for the most part, was
        ended. The canon was fixed.

       In the long, scholarly debate, the grounds on which books qualified for the canon were:
       
       Apostolicity--Either written by an apostle or by one in close association with an apostle.

       Content------The spiritual character of the book. (On the basis of this test most of the
                            apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books were eliminated.)

       Universality--Was the book universally accepted by the Church.

       Inspiration---Did the book give evidence of being divinely inspired?

[Catholica]

Catholica: "Wyclif, a Catholic, produced a corrupted translation of the scriptures.  Do you think that a person should read scriptures that have been wrongly translated and then proclaimed as inspired?  Perhaps you do.  But the Catholic Church insists on good translations, and corrupt translations should be burned lest anyone think they thy are actually the word of God when they are not.  For example: I would use the Message translation for kindling if I had one."

I note that you did not deny the mutilation of John Wyclif by the Catholic Church.

I did not deny it, because it is true.  I note that you did not deny the corrections I made to the falsities that you posted.

The peasant could not read and was instructed in church dogma. One reason Luther nailed his 95 thesis on the Pope's door.

I don't understand the logic here.  If the peasant could not read, then why didn't Luther use pictures rather than written theses?  Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you wrote, or am parsing it wrong.  It would be helpful to me if you would write in complete sentences.

Luther didn't nail the theses to the "Pope's door" but rather to the door of a church in Germany.

Pope Leo X was fleecing the flock by the sale of indulgences for the building of St. Peter's cathedral in Rome. Luther knew his peasants were being led to pay for the corrupt office of Albert of Brandenberg and that they were being taught to think of forgiveness in monetary terms. And you, Catholica, want to talk a bout Catholic interpretation of Scripture??

I didn't say anything about interpretation.  I said "translation".  Wyclif's Bible was a bad translation.  The rest of your comments are way off topic.

I'm not sure what posting a history of the development of the canon was for.  Perhaps you missed the point: it was not that Wyclif had the wrong canon (though his canon was never finished), it's that he did a terrible job of translating the Bible.

[Tyler]

Catholica: "I'm not sure what posting a history of the development of the canon was for.  Perhaps you missed the point: it was not that Wyclif had the wrong canon (though his canon was never finished), it's that he did a terrible job of translating the Bible."

Reason enough for the Catholic Church under the guise of the Spirit filled clergy to burn him to the stake?
Be tough to finish a canon when the Catholics wanted your head.
One man's heretic is another man's champion.
I am reminded of John Huss, and so was Martin Luther in his debate, July, 1519 when Luther an Carlstadt were challenged by Leo's stooge John Eck on the question of authority, and not Scripture.

Scripture got in the way of Catholicism: Eck accused Luther of following the "damned and pestiferous" errors of John Wyclif," and "the pestilent errors of John Hus, who claimed that Peter neither was nor is the head of the Holy Catholic Church."
Coming from Ech is quite amusing: "authority of Scripture" and Pope  Leo's champion of Indulgence.

[e.r.m.]

So does the Catholic Church today approve of their predecessors' killing of the millions they considered heretics, including the Albigenses, the Lollards, and the Anabaptists, and many more?

[epiphanius]

So does the Catholic Church today approve of their predecessors' killing of the millions they considered heretics, including the Albigenses, the Lollards, and the Anabaptists, and many more?

In a word, no.

I don't know of any formal apologies having been made for the groups you mention, but here's one regarding John Hus (if the link still works) that was made by Pope John Paul II to the Czech people in 1999:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1999/december/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_17121999_jan-hus_en.html#top

Here is an excerpt:

Today, on the eve of the Great Jubilee, I feel the need to express deep regret for the cruel death inflicted on John Hus, and for the consequent wound of conflict and division which was thus imposed on the minds and hearts of the Bohemian people.  It was during my first visit to Prague that I declared my hope that precisely in your land decisive steps could be taken on the path of reconciliation and true unity in Christ. The wounds of past centuries must be healed through a new attitude and completely renewed relationships. May our Lord Jesus Christ, "who is our peace... and has broken down the dividing wall of hostility" (Eph 2:14), guide the path of your people's history towards the rediscovered unity of all Christians, which we ardently hope for in the millennium that is about to begin.