There is a joke that the only amendment that matters to a Democrat is the fifth. For my non-American audience, the fifth amendment of the United States constitution protects a number of rights regarding legal proceedings. Most notably, a person may not be compelled to incriminate, or act as a witness against themselves. Thus, the implication of the joke is that Democratic politicians rely on the right not to incriminate or testify against themselves, but have no respect for the rest of the constitution.
This is based on a large amount of truth. Although Democrat voters are often just normal people, the current Democrat platform hardly puts the Constitution on a pedestal. The First amendment protects the right to freedom of expression, yet Democrats are big fans of censorship and encroachment upon religious liberty. The second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, yet Democrats advocate for strict gun control, even praising Draconian gun laws such as those of Australia, and here in the UK. Interestingly, even the fifth amendment, which demands due process, is under assault by "red flag laws" and "no fly, no buy".
Despite being incapable of finding free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the necessity of due process in the Constitution, Democrats insist that gay "marriage", abortion on demand, free healthcare, and several other things are protected constitutional rights. The Democrat party, safe to say, is about as un-American as King George III.
Now, let's imagine you point all this out, and a Democrat turns around and says "well, Democrats gave you the Constitution, so we have the ultimate authority to interpret it, and you have no right to disagree with us". The picture I have just painted is exactly what we see from the Catholic Church.
First, just as the Democratic party was founded after the first 10 amendments of the Constitution were ratified (1791, whereas Democrats cannot trace their origins back before 1792), so also can the Catholic Church not trace their origins back to even 100 A.D. (contrary to their claims), whereas the New Testament was written, at the very latest, in 95 A.D. That's not even acknowledging the fact that Catholicism evolves over time, meaning the modern Catholic Church is radically different now to how it was even in the 1,500s, the 1,200s, the 1,000s, even the 500s. Catholics even shoot themselves in the foot by claiming the Scriptures were not officially recognised until at least 397 A.D., whereas even the New Testament itself refers to other New Testament books as being scripture (e.g. 1 Timothy 5:18 refers to Luke 10:7 as scripture), thus admitting that A. their Church evolves, and B. it is not the original Christian Church. Thus, there is no possible way, barring extreme circular reasoning, that the Catholic Church can claim to have produced the New Testament canon. Certainly not that they did so 300 years later.
But second, and more importantly, the Catholic Church is just as opposed to the Scripture as the modern Democrat platform is to the Constitution. In other words, even if it was provably true that the Catholic Church was the first historical organisation to produce a correct list of books in the New Testament, which is the most generous we can be to the Catholic Church, it wouldn't even matter.
See, regardless of who put it together, the Bible is a book. In fact, the word "Bible" literally means "book". Thus, just like a book, it can be correctly interpreted by anyone with an adequate understanding of the relevant languages. The real dispute lies not in who compiled the individual documents into one helpful volume, but rather in what the words within the book say. For example, when the Bible says "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9) and "And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Romans 11:6), it doesn't matter who originally identified that both Ephesians and Romans are divinely inspired scripture. The fact is, those two verses alone, not to mention when taken in context of the rest of the Bible, clearly show that grace and works do not mix. Thus, when the Catholic Church declares that salvation requires works, they are demonstrably wrong.
Let's add another layer to it. Whereas Catholics cannot prove their historicity, the Jews certainly can. Romans 3:2 even tells us that God committed His oracles (i.e. His revelations) to the Jews, and just one verse earlier, we are told that the Jews have an advantage because of this. The Jews have a much greater claim to have given us the Old Testament than the Catholics will ever have to have given us the New, because whereas the New Testament specifically affirms the Jews having received God's revelations, the Catholic Church is never mentioned. Yet, when non-Christian Jews tell us that Jesus was a blasphemer justly crucified, we still believe that He is the foretold Messiah, and the saviour of both Jew and Gentile alike. What Catholic would ever accept "we Jews gave you your Old Testament" as a reason to reject the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Trinity etc.? Hopefully, none. And so should Christians not reject the Catholic Church's authority to re-write doctrine for the same reason? Of course! And so, as I said in the original meme, Catholics claiming to have given us the Bible is like a Democrat claiming to have given us the Constitution. 1. it's not true, and 2. they so often go against it that it wouldn't matter if it was. If Catholics have any respect for the Bible, they should immediately repent and turn to Christ.