How did we get the Canon of Scripture?

Pope Damasus I convened the Council of Rome in 382AD which compiled an authoritative list of books for the Canon of Scripture. Later, the Council of Carthage (and also Hippo) in August 397AD would re-enforce the Council of Rome's list.  It's been said no actual documents exist from this Council other than information from a letter sent from Pope Damasus to a French/Gaulish bishop telling him of the books for the Sacred Canon. This Canon is the earliest list ever compiled and it is also the same as our modern day Catholic Bible. Here are the books:

-start-

The "Damasine list", issued by Pope Damasus I at the council of Rome 382AD, is as follows:

Old Testament

It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book;Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book;Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave (Joshua), one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books [First and Second Books of Kings,Third and Fourth Books of Kings]; Paralipomenon (Chronicles), two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles (Song of Songs), one book; likewise, Wisdom (of Solomon), one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book;

Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias (Jeremiah) (with Baruch), one book; along with Cinoth (Lamentations); Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee (Hosea), one book; Amos, one book; Micheas (Micah), one book; Joel, one book; Abdias (Obadiah), one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc (Habakkuk), one book; Sophonias (Zephaniah), one book; Aggeus (Haggai), one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias (Malachi), one book.

Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias (Tobit), one book; Esdras (Ezra), two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; ofMaccabees, two books.

New Testament

Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one bookaccording to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians [First Epistle to the Corinthians and Second Epistle to the Corinthians], one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians [First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Second Epistle to the Thessalonians], one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to theColossians, two to Timothy [First Epistle to Timothy and Second Epistle to Timothy], one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews.

Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book.

Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles [First Epistle of Peter and Second Epistle of Peter]; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, oneEpistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles [Second Epistle of John and Third Epistle of John]; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament.

Likewise it is decreed: After the announcement of all of these prophetic and evangelic or as well as apostolic writings which we have listed above as Scriptures, on which, by the grace of God, the Catholic Church is founded, we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

-end-

I don't know how anyone can foster the strength necessary to perform the mental gymnastics required to argue around this evidence. See, the WHOLE Church, the Universal/Catholic Church headed by the Pope and NOT some random "church leaders of the time" convened in 3 sacred councils to determine the Canon of Scripture for ALL Christians to use. And 12 centuries after this fact, (15 centuries if you count before the councils because the 7 OT books in question were used as Scripture by Jesus and the Apostles in the Septuagint), comes along ONE solitary, fallible, anti-semitic, overly-scrupulous, deranged monk named Martin Luther (I am biased), who managed to delude all the Council's work with his fallible decree (God help him if he had his way on the NT books he wanted to remove too) on what the three Councils (Rome (382),Hippo (393), and Carthage (397)) infallibly decreed. All of the 7 Old Testament books are there in their entirety and they're listed in the Canon of all 3 Councils. I highlighted them in RED above to make them easier. Protestants call these 7 OT books the "Apocrypha" when since the Council of Trent in the 16th century, we've called them Deuterocanonical, meaning "secondarily canonical". The Universal Church had to re-enforce the previous 3 Councils and say "yes these books are still part of the Canon even though you Protestants reject them and have removed them." That's why Protestants love to falsely say that at Trent the terrible Roman Catholic Church "added" books to the Bible. That's incorrect and horribly inaccurate. Trent was a defense of doctrine council, just like when the Church defined Transubstantiation, Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption, Jesus' Divinity, etc. 

The book of Enoch is a apocryphal book. The Gospel of Peter is an apocryphal book. The 7 OT books Luther removed are called Scripture. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think it's reasonable and safe to say the Bible is a Catholic book clearly given to the Church by God. The other buckets of water got it from the big bucket of water (elements of truth in the Protestant denominations). The Jewish canon was all over the place. The Sadducee's had a different canon than the Pharisees. One Jewish group only used the Torah while the other used the prophets and history books. Also, the Sadducee's didn't believe in the resurrection while the Pharisee's did. And plus, there were Jews who did use the Septuagint. Jesus and the Apostles being some of them. If you look at when Jesus quotes the OT, you'll notice if you try looking it up in the OT part of your Bible, it doesn't quite match word for word. That's because Jesus and the NT writers are quoting from the Septuagint. Also, the Essenes had in their collection now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, most, if not all, of the 7 OT "Apocryphal" books missing from Luther's fallible canon. Knowing this truth, it's IMPOSSIBLE to accept Luther's canon.   

Five Anglican bishops plan to join Catholic Church :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Five Anglican bishops plan to join Catholic Church :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

There are some Protestants I know who believe they are indeed "catholic" Christians simply because they believe in Christ, read the Scriptures, and believe in the "branch theory" (Example: Methodism came from Anglicanism which came from Catholicism). Therefore, they have a right and legitimate claim to consider themselves to be "catholic" or universal Christians, right?

In the wake of the Pope's invitation to disgruntled traditional Anglicans, several high profile Anglicans among all ranks of their denomination have decided to leave the swamp land of liberal pluralism for the oasis of authentic Christianity founded on the Rock - St. Peter and his successors. I believe anyone claiming any sort of "universalness" in their Christianity, need to look beyond themselves and realize, as the bishops from the above article, that true Catholicism comes from "a unity, we believe, which is possible only in Eucharistic communion with the successor of St Peter."

Is a sin just a sin?

Many non-Catholic Christians like to say in God's eyes there is no distinction between one sin from another. They say "all sin is sin", meaning all sin is equal in offense to God. While it's true that all or any sin offends God, the Bible shows us that there is such a thing as mortal or deadly sin, and venial or not-deadly sin. Lets see what Scripture says on the matter:

NAB 1st John 5:16-17

16 If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.

17All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

Praying for a person is not beneficent for their soul because they need to repent and turn to God in the Sacrament of Confession. How does one commit a mortal sin? Three conditions must be met. 

The conditions required are: 

1.) the sin must be grave matter. 

2.) Full consent of the will. 

3.) The sinner must know what he is doing is indeed a sin.

A sin that is mortal is made by the Christian with their full consent and knowledge. Since we believe in free-will and free-love, a decision to sin that is mortal removes us from God's friendship and thus from spending eternity with Him in the beatific vision in Heaven. 

You don't believe in mortal sin? 

Think of a relationship you have with a loved one. Say you deliberately did something to this person that was just plain awful. Pick any circumstance or situation that involves hurting another person, either physically, emotionally, spiritually. Would your relationship be the same with them after you did this action? Would the damage done just injure or would it sever the ties you had? We are in a similar relationship with God. We can either be a friend or an enemy, even if at one point we were in His friendship. Sacramental Confession for a Catholic and Orthodox Christian is the only way this tear can be repaired, bringing us back into God's good graces. Don't let this awesome opportunity to enter into God's fold escape you before your hour glass expires. Get to your priest and confess with a contrite heart! 

Credo - Symbolum Apostolicum

In English:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.

He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again.

He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

Amen

In Latin:

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae,

et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum,

qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine,

passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus,

descendit ad ínferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,

ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris omnipotentis,

inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.

Credo in Spiritum Sanctum,

sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem,

remissionem peccatorum,

carnis resurrectionem,

vitam aeternam.

Amen.

The part of the Apostle's Creed I would like to focus on is the part that says "sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam" or "holy Catholic Church".  I contest centuries ago, before the so-called Protestant "Reformation" (it hardly reformed anything but rather caused schism and heresy), Christians since the formulation of the Apostle's Creed (and Nicea) correctly understood which Church they were professing belief in. For there were two bodies of believers before the Reformation. The Apostolic Church consisting of the Western Roman and Eastern Greek Churches, and the heretics consisting of Arians, Donatism, Gnostics, Marcionism, Montanism, etc. For more ancient heresies of Christianity visit here. 


Before the division of Christians during and after the "Reformation", Catholics and Orthodox Christians who recited the Creeds understood the "holy Catholic Church" to be the same Church as those who had written the statement of faith. And they were correct in their thinking. Pre-"Reformation" all Christians, whether from the East or West, outside of the heretics, were all in an Apostolic body that was unified in faith, practice, and leadership. They understood that their Metropolitan Bishop's succession to the See could be traced back to the Apostles and Early Church Bishops. It was a very concrete thing and it did not take much mental power to comprehend this reality. Since the thousands of denominations that have sprung up since the "Reformation", this is still not the case outside of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. 


The Protestant mindset when analyzing the Apostle's and Nicean Creeds are only half way there to the full understanding of the Catholic/Orthodox belief at the words "holy Catholic Church". The Protestant will say, and I have a pretty good idea since I used to have this same mindset out of ignorance, that when he/she says "I believe in the holy catholic Church" they are not referring to any particular "denomination", but rather all the "true believers" who have professed Jesus as Lord and Savior. These "true believers" could not possibly be counted since they can be at any place and time in the world. I take this belief to be very abstract and it doesn't sound like much to believe in...personally an invisible body of believers gives me little comfort. This ideal hardly fulfills the Lord's words when he says his followers are to be as obvious as a light on a hill (Matt. 5:14). 


Thinking about this more thoroughly, I'd say there are other conclusions a Protestant can come to with "holy Catholic Church". Although, they certainly would never say it's the "Roman" Church. The die-hard fundamentalist could believe their denomination, though created some man in the last few centuries, truly is the church spoken of in the Creed. This type of believer insists all other Christian expressions are incorrect and their particular "church" was doctrinally right in its founding, thus it can be the church spoken of in the Creeds (Baptists come to mind here). Another Protestant believer might say their denomination branched off of an Apostolic Church at some point, so it can trace it's lineage back to this Church spoken of in the early Creeds. 
I find both, and indeed all of these theories, to be problematic.  The "branch-theory" could not work in the case of Protestantism. The reason the Orthodox are properly and rightly considered Apostolic and true Churches is because they maintained the priesthood, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the 7 Sacraments, Liturgical worship, hierarchy, etc. The true Apostolic faith minus their acceptance of the Pope as having universal jurisdictional authority. The Protestant's completely threw away the Apostolic faith and adopted a new set of beliefs, some of which were condemned in the past. So, for a Protestant to claim the "branch theory" would liken to a member of an ancient heretical cult claiming they too are true Catholic or Orthodox Christians. It's not logical nor reasonable. 


Secondly, for a person, such as a Baptist, to think their denomination (usually as ridged as their individual congregational church) is correct and all other expressions are in error, they would have to show historically how their beliefs today can be found throughout all of Christianity's history. They would need to back up their theology using the Early Church Fathers, Councils, Creeds, and Scripture of course. Any honest person will tell you that at some point, all Protestant denominations, and even those non-denominational denominations, can find their origins in a person who was once Catholic and left the Church to start his own version of Christianity (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, King Henry VIII, Thomas Cramner, John Knox, etc.). For a belief like this to hold would mean Christians for nearly two thousand years were in error, possibly damning error, and Christians were "lost" for all this time until Calvin or Luther or Rick Warren came onto the scene to lead people to the correct beliefs. I find no logic in this and frankly appalling. I don't buy into this "Remnant" belief some extreme Fundamentalist Evangelicals adhere to either. 

So what should an Evangelical, Non-denominational, Protestant be thinking of when they recite the words of the Creed stating belief in the "holy Catholic Church"? They should be thinking of the Catholic Church headed by the current Pope, Benedict XVI. If they think it means the invisible set of true believers in Christ, they are half way there, but not fully correct. Catholics believe too that if one is baptized in the Trinity, they are a Christian and are some how mystically connected to the physical Church Jesus established over two thousand years ago. We regret they are not in full communion with us and we pray for their return to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. 
Protestants are Christians thanks to the baptism and belief in Jesus. However they are sects within Christianity and they lack many of the graces Christ intends for his children to have. They have the Scriptures, which many enjoy abusing by making themselves the sole authority on its interpretation, and they have prayer, along with Baptism and Matrimony.  They severely lack the New Covenant priesthood, Eucharist, Absolution from sins through Confession, and to sum it up, the fullness of faith as promised by the Holy Spirit. I pray for their return to the Church of Christ so that Jesus' powerful prayer "may they all be one" in St. John 17 would be fulfilled.