Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Q: Okay, so what is the Christian account of how revelation occurred?
As Elmer Fudd might say, “Vewy, vewy swowly.” Divine revelation didn’t happen in a blinding flash—such as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them….) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I don’t pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.
So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the world—which might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole “apple incident,” combined with crude deductions that boil down to “Nothing comes from nothing.” But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.
The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligan’s Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles—7 of them, instead of 613—and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. That’s the reason that Jews don’t generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:
Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensical—though we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.
Q: That ark must have been the size of Alabama…
I know, I know.
Q. …to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose…
Okay, smart guy.
Q. …not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure they’re mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.
Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.
Look, there’s a reason why Catholics don’t read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and haven’t since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegory—which means that on top of some historical content (and there’s flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we don’t use this principle to explain away Jesus’ miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literally—except for “This is my body,” (Luke 22: 19) “Thou art Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) and “No, your pastor can’t get divorced.” (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.
Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?
In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldn’t we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primary—some of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Mary’s childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the “Gospel of Thomas,” which has Jesus using His “superpowers” to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door: that bible you’re waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographic—who every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas’ “To-do” list.
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scriptures—but with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the “faithful remnant” who’d remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abraham’s sacrifice, and Isaiah’s references to the “suffering servant.” The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet who’d tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom they’d gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name….
The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul converted—books that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabees—which means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But don’t tell the judges in New York City, or they’ll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.
” The Apostles could not absolve sins.”
Yes, they could.
“That is something that belongs to God only.”
God gave them this power.
“Mar_2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?”
John 15:5
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”
“The reference is to their binding and loosing, officially, as the Priests of the Old Testament did in making lepers either clean or unclean, but not that they gave them leprosy or cleansed their leprosy.”
Sez who? You?
“Tell that to James, who usurped his role in Acts 15, and Paul.”
Oh, you mean James, Bishop of Jerusalem, presiding over the Conference in Jerusalem. I see.
“Therefore, the rock, which is in the feminine form, must either be Peter’s confession.”
petros? The Greek isn’t feminine.
“obedient to the Chief Cornerstone, which is Christ, not any particular man.”
Matthew 8:8-9
The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
Christ later on tells Peter - “Feed my sheep”
“Ignatius doesn’t, neither does Polycarp. In fact, Ignatius, when writing to Polycarp, calls the head of Polycarp God, and not the Pope or any Bishop of Rome. Not even in Ignatius’s letter to the church of Rome is the Bishop even mentioned. Clement mentions Peter, listing him among the other Apostles who died mightily for the faith. No primacy of the Bishop of Rome or of Peter are mentioned.”
This is an argument from silence.
Tertullian argues for Apostolic succession through the bishop of Rome from St. Peter to Clement. So for your argument to prevail, this pushes you back all the way to some time before Tertullian.
“Kind of ironic to quote a man who your church declared a heretic on the subject of heresy :)”
“Truth is often found not it what is omitted, but in what is kept”
I tell Protestants this all the time. They are the greatest force of evangelization for the Catholic church - in using our Canon to preach to others. :) You familiarize people with the Gospels and then tell them not to accept anything but the Gospels that get them in the way of their faith.
Thus, you bring people into the faith that we have put forth. If you were to take a Q’uran, you would put people under muhammed. But here - you use a book you did not write, from a faith you consider the enemy and convert people to it!
“Then why do you use the exact list that the Catholic church formalized?”
Simply because those are the surviving works of the NT era that are inspired by God. If the Catholics came to the same conclusion, then that’s great, they got it right that time. It does not follow that if I agree with them on one point, I am accepting their authority, or must agree with them on every other point.
“Why then do the Vulgates which predate Protestants have the exact same NT?”
Just as being in agreement on one point doesn’t necessitate agreement on all points, the converse is also true. Protestants don’t have to disagree with Catholics on everything. Despite what some might think, it’s not our primary purpose in life to look at everything the Catholics are doing, and then do the opposite :)
That’s just nonesense.
“Simply because those are the surviving works of the NT era that are inspired by God.”
There are plenty of other works which survive that are not canon.
“If the Catholics came to the same conclusion, then that’s great, they got it right that time.”
Let me ask you something. Suppose you look around and find something that you didn’t know before. What would you think if looked back and found that it’s been known a thousand years prior?
“Oh, wow, they got it right this time”.
Or would you start to ask yourself -
“Why didn’t I know about this earlier?”
“It does not follow that if I agree with them on one point, I am accepting their authority, or must agree with them on every other point.”
I’m just saying. You got it from us. Not the other way around. The bible predated Protestants. Protestants didn’t create the bible. Before there was anything that could even conceivably be called a Protestant, the bible had been in existance for over a thousand years.
What you guys did - was take our book and crib off of it. That’s it.
"Settled" must mean indisputable for it to be included here, but which it cannot mean here, as it simply was not, as abundantly evidenced , while it is becoming consistently evident that you simply dismiss evidence with assertions, in order to defend Rome as you must.
O nce again, contrary to your affirming a settled canon, noted RC scholar Hubert Jedin writes that his position was “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271.
"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.” — Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)
And of whom the CE says, “Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly..” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm)
Some proposed to follow the judgment of Cardinal Caietan and distinguish two classes of books, as, it was argued, had been the intention of Augustine. Others wished to draw the line of distinction yet more exactly, and form three classes, (1) the Acknowledged Books, (2) the Disputed Books of the New Testament, as having been afterwards generally received, (3) the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. (B.F. Westcott, The Bible In The Church, p. 256).
Oh sure, they don’t have all the OT books. Neither do they have all the NT books either. What is significant is that they make no distinction between the two.
With some adding some. Yet it is you who places undue weight upon them, not me, thus it is you who must show they are determinative of the inclusion of the apocrypha, which greater RC sources than you did not find, and see the Jews of Jesus time as holding to the smaller canon.
More: Edward Earle Ellis writes, “No two Septuagint codices contain the same apocrypha, and no uniform Septuagint ‘Bible’ was ever the subject of discussion in the patristic church. In view of these facts the Septuagint codices appear to have been originally intended more as service books than as a defined and normative canon of Scripture,” (E. E. Ellis, The Old Testament in Early Christianity [Baker 1992], 34-3 5.
British scholar R. T. Beckwith states, Philo of Alexandria's writings show it to have been the same as the Palestinian. He refers to the three familiar sections, and he ascribes inspiration to many books in all three, but never to any of the Apocrypha....The Apocrypha were known in the church from the start, but the further back one goes, the more rarely are they treated as inspired. (Roger T. Beckwith, "The Canon of the Old Testament" in Phillip Comfort, The Origin of the Bible [Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2003] pp. 57-64)
Now, if your thesis were in fact correct, we would expect to see none of these books appear, and the precise list of Luther appear. We do not. Ergo, your assertion that the Catholic church added books to the canon is incorrect.
False, as the LXX is not determinative of the canon, while it is accepted by far weightier sources than you that, as shown, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia The FACT is that if your thesis is correct, then you would not have RCs who were much closer to the composition of the LXX who did not find it determinative of the canon.
Again,
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
“Rome also invokes unanimous consent of the so-called church fathers when it was not unanimous” Ohoho, you just stated that RC scholars said the issue was not settled. Now you are saying that, according to the Church, it was settled. Thank you. This is a significant admission.
You must be understandably desperate to pull that one. The response was obviously in refutation to "the church is greater than.." argument, but which church deceives, while the fact is that as far as RCs are concerned, the magisterium had not infallibly settled the canon, this debate continued into Trent, which is the issue, and which you avoid admitting. This is a significant omission.
In rejecting the authority of the Magisterium (something Jerome did not do), it was novel.
He did not and it was not as regards to the canon, thus that was not a charge against him, but it is a charge against you for teaching he did.
Again, Catejan states the truth - that the Canon was set by Pope Damasus. Trent says the same and simply affirms that the Magisterium was in agreement. And had always been in agreement.
Which (Catejan) is contrary to what has been substantiated, as it is that the canon was settled/indisputable before Trent. But simply deny the evidence with assertions is what a faithful RC must do in such a case. At least you are faithful, and evidence why we should reject Rome.
“You familiarize people with the Gospels and then tell them not to accept anything but the Gospels that get them in the way of their faith.”
Well, I wouldn’t quite put it that way. Protestants are free to accept anything, as long as it doesn’t conflict with the Gospel.
“Thus, you bring people into the faith that we have put forth. If you were to take a Q’uran, you would put people under muhammed. But here - you use a book you did not write, from a faith you consider the enemy and convert people to it!”
You also use a book that neither you nor your church wrote, my friend. It was written by God. The continual claims to the contrary by Catholics smack of excessive pride and boasting. How many times did the Apostles take credit for works they may have participated in, instead of giving the greater glory to God? I can’t think of a single instance from Scripture, can you?
Also, I don’t consider Catholicism, or Catholics to be “the enemy”. I believe they are mistaken on some points, but that doesn’t make them my enemy.
“Settled” must mean indisputable for it to be included here”
Sez who? You?
That the magisterium is in agreement doesn’t mean that there is no disagreement amongst the body.
And that takes care of your entire post. That was a bit disappointing. Yes, sure, there have been some in disagreement, but the point is that the Magisterium has consistantly taught that despite disagreement as to the contents of the Canon, that they were able to come to agreement on a standard.
It was somewhat tongue in cheek. :)
I don’t consider you the enemy either. The post was in earnest though, and I hope you consider the point.
The protestants didn’t create the bible - the bible came first. Arguing you should change something you didn’t make is not really a very good argument.
....”The plain and simple fact is that if a protestant understood the New Testament, he would be constrained to convert to the Catholic Church”......
OF course he wouldn’t, in fact if he knows and understands ‘the entire Bible’, even that which he may not yet understand this side of heaven, he would do just the opposite.
The Bible unfolds from the beginning to the end....in a sense it interprets itself as one continues to read and study.
God loves a sincere seeker of the truth and never disappoints those who do so.....and as He does this it draws us even closer to Him.
“Do you believe that such foul language and imagery will impress anyone with your godliness or sway Catholics from their beliefs? I would like to know why you felt it necessary to go there in the Religion Forum.”
What, is mentioning that your Priest might be molesting a little boy on Saturday, but forgiving you of your sins on Sunday, not a relevant point to make? Has that not been true for Catholics for centuries upon centuries? Does God say “tough luck!” to the faithful who have to rely on corrupt Priests and Bishops to receive ‘saving’ sacraments?
If the Roman authorities claim to be the direct successors of the Apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit and appointed infallibly from one Bishop to another all the way back to Peter, how DO you explain the centuries of degenerates leading the Roman Catholic Church whom you all depend on for your salvation instead of God? Either the Priest who forgives your sins has authority to do so or he doesn’t. Either they have the Holy Spirit and can behave as mediators between God and man or they cannot.
“specious references cannot be part of the discussion.”
Like Tertullian’s “anti-Catholic” rejection of the Eucharist as the literal body of Christ? Or Jerome against the judicial forgiveness of sins by Priests? Or “Pope” Gregory against the primacy of the Bishop of Rome? Or James presiding over the Church in Acts 15? Or Paul facing down Peter face to face as an equal? Or Peter calling all Christians rocks that build the church, with Christ as the Chief Cornerstone? Are all these things “spurious”?
I have no desire of making friends here, just telling the truth. If the Romans cannot handle it, they should stop telling everyone that their church has authority over us.
No you don't. You obviously did not contradict the Holy Scripture, but neither had you based your answer solely on the scripture in any meaningful way. The only reference to the inspired nature of 1 Timothy in the Holy Scripture is indirect. The reference to the Deuterocanon in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 is, as it should be obvious to you, far more direct.
Form your next post: but it is a common misunderstanding of RC’s that Protestants are total lone rangers, subject to no authority or influence of other believers. Not usually so. I respect the authority and government of my church, submit to it in the Lord, and rely quite often on the scholarship of those who have gone before me! I just don’t elevate all that to the point of infallible, that’s all.
So you submit to the authority and the government of your particular Protestant community of faith that 1 Timothy is inspired and you do not submit to the authority and the government of much older Catholic Church that the Wisdom of Solomon, for example, is also inspired. That is what it boils down to: from scripture alone you cannot conclude so.
My gosh....what twisted thinking. ....In fact... many I know were raised in the Catholic Church and came away from it as adults,.....it was not til after they left the Catholic Faith they became Christians... and that while attending a Protestant or Evangelical Churches.....realizing the difference between ‘Churchianity’ and ‘Christianity’. ...There is a difference between submission to a church and submission to the Christ of Christianity.
While RCs attributing lack of objectivity or fair motive is usually one sided, yet I have done much searching which included both sides (i was looking at more than one Catholic answers [though they quickly banned me a while ago] page even today before this) , and it is unbiased research that is lacking among Internet RC apologists, and which therefore results in much countering evidence.
For rather than an unbiased treatment, and contrary to more scholarly sources (including the CE with its own slant), they abound with the lie that the canon was settled until Luther as a maverick questioned and rejected books, even if he did not say he considered his opinion the last word.
And here on this thread we have exampled the lengths some will go to in avoiding a simple admission of that fact.
I am not at home so I don't have access to my personal library but I do have "numerous" citations, both directly from St. Jerome (Eusebius Hieronymus) and indirect by those referring to him. I am sure that your penchant for research will enable you to locate them if you have a desire to pursue unbiased research.
I have, and which is referenced and responded to by another, but the issue is not whether Jerome invoked them in his polemics and even inferred or referred to some as Scripture, i believe the mistake that is made is not recognizing the two fold type of canon that was held, unlike in Trent (Deuterocanonical itself comes from the Greek meaning 'belonging to the second canon"). In which some were referred to as "ecclesiastical" rather than "canonical" or "apocryphal" -- they are read in the church, but not to be cited for proof texts of doctrine. ("Against Rufinus")
Thus while Jerome can be shown referencing DCs as Scripture, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether this amounted to an affirmation of unquestioned full divine inspiration on his part, contradicting his earlier claim.
The judgment of Catholic Encyclopedia in this regard is that,
An analysis of Jerome's expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship.
Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
And it is one thing to argue that that he simply "knew of no Jews who considered the Deuterocanonical books as a part of Jewish canon or Scripture," as you state, and it is another thing to argue that and it is another to concede that he rejected them but argue that he later seemed to accept them.
That Jerome did reject them is what is to be unquestioned, based upon his unquestioned statements in his translations, such as his Prologue to the Books of the Kings: "...so we reckon twenty-two books, by which, as by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in tender infancy, and, as it were, while still at the breast."
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings.
Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style. http://www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html
In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states,
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)
No, you.
* “since the books were clearly in question for many centuries” No, they were not.
Thus you affirm a settled canon existed, as being without dispute prior to Trent.
* “until then there was no infallible, indisputable canon” Were they included in Gutenberg’s bible?
This response is only fitting if your contention is that there was an no infallible, indisputable canon.
* “Trent was the first infallible and indisputable list of the canon.” If you read Trent, Trent explicitly says that it is simply a confirmation of what already existed.
Once again, you are arguing for an infallible, indisputable canon before Trent.
That the magisterium is in agreement doesn’t mean that there is no disagreement amongst the body.
That is another one of your misleading responses, as disagreement amongst the body is not the same as sanctioned disagreement on a previously clearly and precisely defined infallible teaching (the canonical books), even by theologians in a major council, which is what an infallible teaching ends on that level. And thus Trent did, unlike before.
And that takes care of your entire post.
Having been out of town on a business trip since Monday I do not have access to my actual books. I am sorry you feel the need to misinterpret that as obfuscation.
As a matter of practical principle it is a waste of your time an mine to attempt to refute the decisions of the Magisterium with errant sources and published opinions. The 73 book Canon of the Bible was affirmed by the Church in 382 and reaffirmed multiple times since. That is all I require.
Peace be with you
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.