Posted on 10/06/2019 9:00:00 AM PDT by NRx
THAT only took 17 replies to get here!
To the contrary, the testimony of history is that these were not considered to be even close to infallible (requiring assent of faith) or requiring religious assent (of mind and will, and forbidding public dissent, at least as per later official teaching), but was a matter one could validly and publicly express different opinions on, which is only what Luther did.
And where was even Luther's opinion on the canon made a real issue by the contemporary Roman powers that be? I have not seen it.
Dang!
What took Rome so long?
And yet; when an apparition comes along; claiming to be 'Mary'; you Catholics are so damned EAGER to accept what it says to you and follow and obey every word and nuance.
Neither are chapters or verses; but mere Catholic inventions.
Where did THAT 'authority' come from?
I don't like where chapter six of Hebrews starts; with the word, "Therefore".
Context wise it should start 4 verses earlier...
Hebrews 5 King James Version (KJV) 11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. 12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. 13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. Hebrews 6 King James Version (KJV) 1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this will we do, if God permit. 4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
This belies the FACT there was NOT a UNANIMOUS decision as to which 'canon' was 'accepted'.
Then; as today; the most men's votes on a matter carries the day.
I shudda read ahead!
I have my OWN theology; now let's see what writings I can find to uphold my position.
Rather, that of adopting "father" as a formal title. For "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven (Matthew 23:9) cannot be understood without clarification. First, it can hardly be reasonably prohibiting calling earthy fathers by that title, nor forbidding one as referring to himself as a spiritual father, as Paul does, and which thus implicitly would allow a Onesimus to call him that.
However, that simply does not warrant adopting that as a formal title to be used by everyone, and in reality Catholic priests are not spiritual fathers due to them baptizing their subjects (which would be the main reason given for calling them that), since the act of baptism itself does not effect regeneration, but which requires repentant faith. (Acts 2:38; 10:43-47; 25:7-9)
But if you want to refute error, it is better to start with a clearer case of it, from the Catholic priesthood itself to praying to created beings in Heaven to transubstantiation .
And yet look at the hand-wringing debate when faced with a teaching that Florence did dogmatically declare (since the V2 "clarification" is rather clearly a contradiction of it): https://forums.catholic.com/t/how-is-this-papal-bull-not-infallible/78970/30
Just one more example of how the self-proclaimed grandInterpreter is subject to interpretation.
But I don't WANT to 'refute' it; but claim that ONLY my organization has the right to say what error even IS!!!
--Wannabe_Catholic_Dude(Hail Mary!!)
Canons 68: Jews and Muslims shall wear a special dress to enable them to be distinguished from Christians so that no Christian shall come to marry them ignorant of who they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Council_of_the_Lateran
Further illustrating that Roman Catholics pick and choose which of their "dogmatic" decrees they want to follow.
As you know there are many others that have fallen by the wayside as in being ignored by the Roman Catholic.
From the twelfth ecumenical council no less.
Of course that is the position. RC or EO.
Scripture owes its authority to the Church. (Alkiviadis C. Calivas – 2002; Theology: The Conscience of the Church) - Page 123
“Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. (Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
In Catholic theology you cannot even known what Scripture consists of unless you put faith in her:
It is the living Church and not Scripture that St. Paul indicates as the pillar and the unshakable ground of truth....no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading. - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
Thus, appeal is to be made to Scripture merely as a reliable historical document, by which the souls which cannot discern Scriptre as being of God, are somehow able to see the Catholic Church as being from God, and thus know what writings are of God.
In order to prevent misconception and thereby to anticipate a common popular objection which is wholly based on a misconception it should be premised that when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources, and abstract altogether from their inspiration. (Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility)
However, when one sees that Catholic distinctives are not manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the gospels), then Catholics often argue the historical absurdity, "we gave you the Bible...we know what it means, not you.
Which would mean that 1st century souls should have submitted to all the judgments of those who sat in the seat of Moses.
But of course, in response it is effectively argued that history, tradition and Scripture only authoritatively mean what she says:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. - The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: pp. 227-228.
The rejection by the official magisterium of John the baptist who the common people rightly discerned was "a prophet indeed" (Mark 11:32) was based upon like presumption, as was the reaction to the common people who rightly discerned Christ:
Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:47-49)
Then you have "universal acceptance" versus "generally accepted" which apparently are supposed to mean the same thing.
Church councils are rare and exceptional events. Given the great expense and effort in holding one, they are used only to discuss pressing matters of the faith. They are not called to settle disputes among academics. While there were voices that disputed the status of the Deuterocanonical books, these had no real impact on the beliefs and practices of the faithful. The Deuterocanonical books were included in the volumes of the Vulgate Bible and were used in the liturgies of the Church, all without distinction between them and the Protocanonical books. It was only with Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation that the idea of rejecting these books became popular, thus the need for a dogmatic statement at Trent.
No, but it did show what was accepted as Scripture by the Church
The early ekklesia recognized the writings which were inspired. This is clear from several passages in the NT.
The New Testament contains no list of the canon of Scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.