😂🤣😆😎
Posted on 10/06/2019 9:00:00 AM PDT by NRx
Anytime you guys can’t get your story straight you blame Luther. Your own councils could not agree. But I’m glad Luther lives in your head rent free. Maybe if you study the Reformation you might learn something. Luther lead a mighty movement of God setting His church free of long-standing error and abuse.
...................................
One of the stupidest arguments I've seen bandied about on this forum.
Any 6th grader could look at the Bible and make a table of contents.
Really tells you Catholicism has nothing, but a desire to cling to the appearance of the Roman Wizard.
😂🤣😆😎
And so, per usual, the specious appeal to the Septuagint is invoked, which was already exposed as such in post 32 . Your premise requires that the LXX of the first century contained the Deuteros, which the evidence does not substantiate (manuscripts of anything like the capacity of Codex Alexandrinus were not used in the first centuries), and that the contents were (even close to) uniform in the extant mss that do contain them, which is hardly the case.
And in case you want to appeal to the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran,:
these included not only the community's Bible (the Old Testament) but their library, with fragments of hundreds of books. Among these were some Old Testament Apocryphal books. The fact that no commentaries were found for an Apocryphal book, and only canonical books were found in the special parchment and script indicates that the Apocryphal books were not viewed as canonical by the Qumran community. — The Apocrypha - Part Two Dr. Norman Geisler http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0602.pd
This has often been shown to be the case. See here for two cases re. the former.
Excellent writeup, sir!
I laugh every time I see that "apologetic" posted.
I made no such claim. The Council of Rome was a local council, and as such, like the North African councils, does not have the charism of infallibility. It does, however, give evidence to the acceptance of the Deuterocanonical books in the West. I did not intend to say that any of those citations were formal infallible decrees of the Church. Rather, they are evidence of what was the generally accepted teaching. This day to day teaching of the Church is Ordinary Magisterium, or Teaching Authority, and enjoys the same infallibility as those formal decrees of ecumenical councils or proclamations of popes. It is typical of the legalistic mentality of Protestants to discount anything other than formal legal decrees.
…and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent.
Disputed, yes, but not conclusively denied. But even if it were to be agreed that this is a work of the 6th century rather than that of the of 4th, it would still show that the Deuterocanonical books were accepted then.
Church teaching in the Ordinary Magisterium, that is in the day to day teaching of the Church, are often questioned. Thus the need at times for the formal proclamations of ecumenical councils and popes. Even today we see some who are questioning Church teaching on a number issues related to sexual morality. There may be a need for a formal declaration to settle these issues, but this does not take away that the teaching of the Church in these areas has been constant.
It also amuses me that in their attempt to claim that the Catholic Church only defined the canon of the Bible at Trent, that they ignore the Council of Florence in 1442. In any case, the canon of the Bible was settled in the Ordinary Magisterium (occasional objections notwithstanding) long before either of these councils made their proclamations.
It is a logical fallacy (ie, a “genetic fallacy”) to object to an argument based on its source. The question is whether the argument is valid or not, which in this case, it is. Try answering the argument rather attacking the messenger.
Ah, but we aren’t dismissing the arguments because they come from Tim.
We’re pointing out that Tim Staples arguments are lame and easily disproved nonsense 99.9% of the time.
Would you make the same argument for allowing passages from the Koran or the Book of Mormon?
False teaching is false teaching.
Even the author of this article recognizes this is not a dogmatic declaration of the canon...and it did not eliminate the question of the canon for Rome as daniel1212 has noted.
As daniel1212 has noted on this thread, it was only at Trent that Roman Catholicism declared its canon as dogmatic.
To continue to insist is to ignore history.
ping
No, I would not because it is a lazy and weak way to argue. If you cannot refute a false teaching by showing the argument is wrong without resorting to ridicule, ad hominem, or genetic fallacies, your arguments aren’t going to convince anyone.
No, I would not because it is a lazy and weak way to argue. If you cannot refute a false teaching by showing the argument is wrong without resorting to ridicule, ad hominem, or genetic fallacies, your arguments aren’t going to convince anyone.
Well, I showed you from sources a Roman Catholic would approve of and you rejected those.
The argument I used was not to ridicule but to show that false writings are not to be used regardless of the source.
Now, if you want examine the actual writing itself we will find there are errors in the Protoevangelium of James (PoJ) that contradict Scripture.
Further, if we examine Scripture and believe it to be inspired, and not condemned like the PoJ, we find Joseph and Mary did have children of their own AFTER Jesus was born.
As this contradicts Rome's position on the "perpetual virginity" of Mary I suspect this is why you continue argue in favor of this (PoJ) writing.
Roman Catholicism has built much of its Marian dogmas on shifting sand.
It [the Church] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.Like a good legalist, you are hanging your hat on a technicality. As the author of that article said: "While this may not (technically) be a dogmatic definition, it eliminates any ambiguity about whether or not the Deuterocanon is canonical." Dogmatic declarations are not used to create new dogma, only to reaffirm what is already taught. And as I have said before, the day-to-day teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium is just as infallible as the solemn declarations of the Extraordinary Magisterium. And here the Council of Florence actually lists which books the Church holds as Scripture. Can there be any doubt that the Catholic Church accepted the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books at the Council of Florence?Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.
Hence it anathematizes the madness of the Manichees who posited two first principles, one of visible things, the other of invisible things, and said that one was the God of the new Testament, the other of the old Testament.
The question is not when a dogmatic decree was issued, but when these books were accepted by the Church. This she did in her Ordinary Magisterium since the 4th century, or the 5th century if you want to wait for their acceptance in the East.
Oh, but the question IS when a dogmatic decree was issued.
Because it means Luther didn’t ‘take books out of the Bible’ if the dogmatic decree was issued after his death, which it was.
Because it doesn't change anything. It IS NOT a dogmatic declaration of the canon as daniel1212 has already demonstrated.
Rome only dogmatically defined their canon at Trent. I don't know why Roman Catholics continue to say otherwise when the history is against them.
Dogmatic declarations are not used to create new dogma, only to reaffirm what is already taught. And as I have said before, the day-to-day teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium is just as infallible as the solemn declarations of the Extraordinary Magisterium.
In light of the current issues with your pope are you sure you want to stay with this statement?
Because it means Luther didn’t ‘take books out of the Bible’ if the dogmatic decree was issued after his death, which it was.
False premise. The accepted Catholic Bible included the Deuterocanonical books since the 4th century, and this even without a dogmatic decree. There was no dogmatic decree limiting the priesthood to men until Pope John Paul II's Ordinatio sacerdotalis in 1994. But who would say that Catholics only started to limit the priesthood to men in that year. There was no dogmatic decree on the canon of the Bible until Trent because there was no need for one; the Deuterocanonical books were accepted by Catholics as part of the Bible. In eliminating them from his canon Luther did, indeed, take books out of what was recognized by Catholics as the Bible.
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.