Consider
scenario: You are at
park, minding your own business and enjoying a day off from your labors. Suddenly, he appears. The well-meaning Christian who wants to "save" you from damnation. In his zeal to enlighten your wretched soul, he whips out his handy Bible and fires off a few choice New Testament phrases. He is confident you will be dazzled.He begins by citing St. Paul in
ever-popular 2 Tim 3:16, "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction and for training in righteousness..." This is rapidly followed by Christ's admonition to
Sadducees in Mt. 22:29, "...You are misled because you do not know
scriptures or
power of God." Finally, he clinches
deal with
story of
learned Jew turned believer named Apollos who, in Acts 18:28, "...vigorously refuted
Jews in public, establishing from
scriptures that
Messiah is Jesus."
He appears quite pleased with his efforts. Having shown you
preeminence of
scriptures in
selected passages, he hopes you'll conclude, as he has, that
Bible is all you need for salvation. No creed, no church, and no hierarchy are required.
Taking a long pull on your coffee, you look him square in
eye. With devastating kindness, you thank him for honoring
authority of
Catholic Church. He stiffens up immediately. Like a dog looking at a clock, his facial expression belies a complete lack of understanding. He is momentarily silent, for he has no pithy rejoinder to such a bizarre comment.
He finally gathers his thoughts enough to inquire as to what your response could possibly mean. You politely declare that you are a Catholic and, as such, believe that
fullness of Truth resides in
Catholic Church, not simply in
Bible. The Bible, you affirm, is part of a much larger deposit of revelation. In fact,
Catholic Church is
mother of
Bible.
Shocked at your impunity, he immediately fires back that you are calling into question
very Word of God, hoping that will cow you into submission. You smile and offer to share some insights to defend your position. He agrees to listen, half-expecting to be amused as you concoct some wild story.
You begin by explaining that
New Testament letters and accounts he cited earlier of Paul, Matthew, and Luke (author of Acts) were written during
first century. While Christianity survived underground during
ensuing centuries of persecution, these documents, along with others, were scattered across
Roman Empire. There was no New Testament yet; there was no Bible as we know it today.
You remind him that it wasn't until
Christian faith was legitimized by Emperor Constantine's decree in
fourth century that
Church could publicly begin to compile a canon, or rule, of sacred writings. The task required sorting through hundreds of letters and texts attributed to Apostles, evangelists, bishops and saints. The goal was, in essence, to distill
truly inspired works from those that were merely inspiring.
Pope St. Damasus I in 382 AD first proposed a list of twenty-seven "books" that would comprise
canon. Gatherings, known as synods, of esteemed bishops were then convened in
north African cities of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD). These synods prayerfully attempted to discern
will of
Holy Spirit in deciding what texts belonged in
canon and which did not. The Church well understood
import of this task. Once
canon was decided, it would be closed forever to preclude any tampering.
In
year 419 AD a second Council of Carthage was convened under
leadership of no less a figure than St. Augustine, a bishop and one of
Fathers of
Church. This council confirmed
canon as approved by
earlier synods and forwarded it to Pope Boniface in Rome. The pope then authorized and promulgated
text and
New Testament became a reality, almost four centuries after Christ.