Why do virulent anti-Catholics accept without question the four Gospels chosen by the Catholic Church?

Question

I'm asking respectfully. I believe Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are saved through Jesus.

Some people are full of mistrust toward the Catholic Church. Why do they accept the Gospels that the Catholic Church chose? There were plenty of other "gospels" in circulation. The Church could've altered them to "prove" their doctrines. In fact, not altering them proves the Church's faithfulness.

"By the turn of the 5th century the Catholic Church in the west under Pope Innocent I recognized a biblical canon including the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which was previously established at a number of regional Synods, namely the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and two Synods of Carthage (397 and 419). This canon, which corresponds to the modern Catholic canon, was used in the Vulgate, an early 5th century translation of the Bible made by Jerome under the commission of Pope Damasus I in 382." -

No angry emails please, just XXX and OOO. God bless you

Answer 1

Many Christians have very little knowledge of early Christian/Catholic history. They apparently think that all the Christians just automatically agreed about which books to include in the Bible. They have no idea that there was disagreement and debate for about three centuries.

I didn't exactly understand what you said, though. There were some books added to the Catholic Bible at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

Answer 2

You are right: If the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel, then the Bible, which explains the teachings of the Catholic Church, a work written by Catholics, read by Catholics, selected by Catholics, and canonized by Catholics, is also a false gospel. But of course, the Catholic Church never intended Christianity to be a religion of the book, like Judaism, Islam, and Protestantism. A religion of the book is a plastic religion that can be remolded to please the hard-hearted believer. For example, Chris finds verses he thinks says that you can commit any sin you please after being saved and still go to heaven. If ever a reading came straight from hell, that is it. In his infinite wisdom, Jesus Christ entrusted his teachings not to a book, but to the Church, the living community of faithful disciples with personal knowledge of the Word. Cheers, Bruce

Answer 3

Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical". The Syrian (Nestorian) Church has only 22 books in the New Testament while the Ethiopian Church has 8 "extra." The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible included the "Apocryphal" (ie, Deuterocanonical) Books.

The 7 books removed from Protestant Bibles are known by Catholics as the "Deuterocanonical Books" (as opposed to the "Protocanonical Books" that are not in dispute), and by Protestants as the "Apocrypha."


"Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. I mention this because, apparently, some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

In any case, the Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

Answer 4

My point exactly. There were many gospels in existence besides the ones we have in the bible, and the Church, by her God-given authority, decided on the four we have. If Protestants can't stand the Church so much, why do they keep using Her bible?

Answer 5

The choosing of the Gospels occurred when there was one Church. As the core of the Bible, no Christian group (even "different" groups like the LDS Church or the JWs) have had the audacity to get rid of these four. On what they say (as opposed to how to interpret it), we can all agree. And that's worth something.

Answer 6

Because they don't know the history of the Bible or the Church. They don't know where the Bible came from...as far as they're concerned, it fell out of the sky one day bound in a leather cover.

If you told them that there were originally almost 40 gospels and the Catholic Church chose the 4 which we have today, most of them would either be appalled or think you were lying.

"To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant..."

Answer 7

maybe this will help our seperated brothers and sisters in christ to open their eyes regarding catholicism, even if not to become catholic but atleast have respect and courtesy for the church that gave them a bible.

Answer 8

They deny the history of their origin or they are just ignorant of history and Scriptures as to the authority of Christ's Church.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

Answer 9

They refuse to believe that the Catholic Church chose them. They do not learn actual history but, something some hate filled Pastors dish out..

Answer 10

They were chosen by christians ! The Popes are just leaders of the Roman church. Later they developed a controlling influence in the Western church, and dictated policies, even had their own army and worldly territory for many centuries. I think the early christians would not have liked that at all.

I wish catholics would stop elevating a hierarchy that has been at times badly wrong. There have been some bad Popes. If the Papacy hadn't gotten so corrupt a Reformation would not have been required.