(262) 385-7485

126 Sebastian alleges there was no Catholic Church or Catholic Bible in the first century. IS HE CORRECT?


Church of the Holy Sepulchre 

Sebastian says; there was no Catholicism nor Catholic Church to have Catholic Bible in first century.  These are all false claims and there is no truth in it.  Originally Bible was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and not even in Latin or English. 

Sebastian you are right in saying there were no Catholic Bibles in the first century.  This is because the Bible Canon (New Testament) was not determined fully until the fourth century at the councils of Hippo and Carthage, both Catholic councils.   The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek (Septuagint) about a hundred years before Christ.  The Apostles and Jesus spoke Aramaic (a dialect of Hebrew).  The oldest New Testament full manuscripts were written in Greek.  They were penned by Catholic monks in a room called a scriptorium.  All legitimate Protestant and Catholic Bibles are translations from these oldest Greek Catholic manuscripts. 

And yes, the early Church in the first century was Catholic.  It was first called catholic (universal) by Ignatius of Antioch in the year 110.  The name stuck and it has been called Catholic ever since.  That is why in the Apostles Creed we say; I believe in one holy catholic and Apostolic Church.  Catholic and many Protestant churches use this Catholic creed in their worship services.  All the earliest Church fathers were Eastern or Western rite Catholics.  

One of the reasons that Protestants like BIBLE ONLY theology is because then you can ignore history.   History is the friend of the Catholic Church.  You cannot study historical Christianity beyond the Protestant reformation without studying the Catholic Church.   I find it interesting when people from the newer churches speak against the historical Catholic Church and Catholic councils.   The point is, they can criticize the Catholic Church BECAUSE IT EXISTED IN HISTORY.   I can’t criticize their newer Churches because they didn’t exist.  They came later.    

An Evangelical scholar once admitted that the word TRADITION is only used in a negative context in many Evangelical groups.  This is true even though the word tradition is used, at times, in both negative and positive contexts in the Bible.   He said this is because history is part of tradition.  Tradition means handed on.   And what is handed on in Christianity is Catholic tradition going back to Christ and the Apostles.   Parts of that Catholic tradition are those oldest Greek Catholic manuscripts that both Protestants and Catholics use to come up with new Bible translations. 

When I visited Israel, I found it interesting that all of the earliest historical churches were either Eastern Orthodox or Catholic Churches.  In Jerusalem, the Oldest Church is the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.  Inside this Church is the actual places where Jesus died, buried and rose from the dead.  I remember commenting to Stephen Ray, our tour guide; I wonder what Protestants think when they realize that all of these historical churches are either Eastern Orthodox or Catholic? 

There are some who say the real Church went underground in the fourth century and then reemerged in the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation.  The problem with this scenario is that the Protestant Reformation did not emerge from some hidden church.  All the earliest Protestant reformers were in fact Catholic, before they broke from the Catholic Church.   Many of them, such as Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli and Menno Simons and others were in fact Catholic priests.  John Calvin was not a priest but he was educated in a Catholic school.   

You can pretend the history of the Church and the Bible are not Catholic if you wish, but if you do, you are no friend of real Christian history.