Posted on 02/15/2017 5:19:25 AM PST by Gamecock
“Your comment shows you have no idea of what you’re talking about.”
Oh I know exactly what I’m talking about.
“Secondly, the Orthodox and Copts most certainly do recognize the authority of the pope in the Church of Rome. What they don’t recognize is his authority over the Catholic Church in general”
Yes, as I said, they do not recognize the authority of the pope. Nobody disputes that the Catholics can pick the bishop of Rome, it is his assumption of authority over the entire church (as “pope”) that is in dispute.
“Except it was”
Not really, the eastern churches were disputing the supremacy of the Roman bishop for centuries before the final schism, and of course the Copts split off and have been following their own “pope” since the 5th century. There is also plenty of evidence from the church fathers that the supremacy of the Roman pontiff is an invention that came centuries after the beginning of the church.
“If you could think logically, you would realize no matter what any modern Orthodox think about the pope, they all believe in the Deuterocanonicals. Thus, by the very standard you employ on the pope, the tradition of the Deutercanonicals is assured.”
It’s not a standard I am employing, it’s a standard YOU were employing. I am simply pointing out that if that standard is employed consistently, it undermines the authority of your pope. Now, you can choose to abandon that hypocritical argument or not, that’s up to you.
Hey Game
1000 to 1 that your grandmother’s and great grandmother’s going back a 100 generations all included the deuterocannon - but not your daughter’s grand daughters and down thru your next 100 generation - wont have it.
All protestants are now reaping thar whirlwind of the decision of a few.
AMDG
Says who?
Not the jews, that’s for sure. They wrote their Scripture in Hebrew.
It is amazing to me how many people in the OT understood what was going on in the spiritual realm. Perhaps they didn't agree for their own evil devices, but they knew.
Today we have at least two generations that have no idea what the scriptures say and have no curiosity to find out.
I DO blame public school.
Seems to imply that after the Protestant Reformation that the Roman Catholic church looked around and decided to declare their own canon. Interesting article in Wikipedia on that subject.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_Christian_biblical_canon
ping
Different groups in ancient Jewish society held to different canons, but a very large number, if not a majority (even then the diaspora was huge) held to the the Septuagent. Jesus quoted from the Septuagent, and from the deuterocanonical books contained within it.
“And translated it to Koine”
Oh, please. The jews preserved every single book of their Scriptures in Hebrew. If they didn’t preserve a book in Hebrew, it obviously wasn’t Scripture.
“Different groups in ancient Jewish society held to different canons, but a very large number, if not a majority (even then the diaspora was huge) held to the the Septuagent.”
Oh, which version of the Septuagint would that be? After all, there were multiple versions, with different combinations of apocryphal books included. The only books that are consistent across the different versions are the Hebrew canon that all jews accept.
LOL, keep pulling those covers! Nothing like an educated opposition to the catholicity of Rome.
Not hardly.
[The Council] accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. 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, Habakuk, 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. -- Council of Florence, Session 11, February, 1442
[T]he Canonical Scriptures are as follows: * Genesis * Exodus * Leviticus * Numbers * Deuteronomy * Joshua the Son of Nun * The Judges * Ruth * The Kings (4 books) * The Chronicles (2 books) * Job * The Psalter * The Five books of Solomon (includes Wisdom and Sirach) * The Twelve Books of the Prophets * Isaiah * Jeremiah * Ezechiel * Daniel * Tobit * Judith * Esther * Ezra (2 books) * Maccabees (2books). The New Testament: * The Gospels (4 books) * The Acts of the Apostles (1 book) * The Epistles of Paul (14) * The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle (2) * The Epistles of John the Apostle (3) * The Epistles of James the Apostle (1) * The Epistle of Jude the Apostle (1) * The Revelation of John (1 book). Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church." -- Fourth Council of Carthage, AD 419, Canon XXIV, substantially identical to canon xxxvi of the Council of Hippo, AD 393.
The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book: Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave, one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), one book; Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaiah, one book; Jeremias, one book; along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books. Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives ... -- Tome of [Pope] Damasus, AD 382
Clearly, any claim that Trent added books to the Old Testament, and did so against the tradition of the Church, is ahistorical nonsense.
Do you reject the New Testament? Not written in Hebrew, [parts] not written in Israel, etc.
We’re talking of the Old Testament, what the jews kept as Scripture, not the Christian New Testament Scriptures.
“Oh I know exactly what I’m talking about.”
Clearly not.
“Yes, as I said, they do not recognize the authority of the pope.”
But they do recognize he has authority. It is the scope of that authority that is the issue and they now differ from their former position.
“Nobody disputes that the Catholics can pick the bishop of Rome, it is his assumption of authority over the entire church (as “pope”) that is in dispute.”
Now. But not in the beginning. Again: https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298
“Not really, the eastern churches were disputing the supremacy of the Roman bishop for centuries before the final schism,”
But earlier they did not. Again, https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298
“and of course the Copts split off and have been following their own “pope” since the 5th century.”
They always had their own pope - simply because he is their patriarch. You’re assuming one thing followed another. It didn’t.
“There is also plenty of evidence from the church fathers that the supremacy of the Roman pontiff is an invention that came centuries after the beginning of the church.”
Actually, there is no such evidence.
“It’s not a standard I am employing, it’s a standard YOU were employing.”
No. The standard I employed was simply this: ALL THE ANCIENT CHURCHES recognized books that modern Protestants do not. What does that tell you? That the Protestants are out of step. You then attempted to say that because Orthodox Christians deny some authorities of the pope NOW that that means they must have always done so - which is not true.
“I am simply pointing out that if that standard is employed consistently, it undermines the authority of your pope.”
And that simply doesn’t work because you are wrong in any case. If you knew more, you probably would not have made the mistake you have made.
“Now, you can choose to abandon that hypocritical argument or not, that’s up to you.”
I have never made a “hypocritical argument”. I wouldn’t know how. My argument was simply correct and is in fact irrefutable. All the ancient Churches used the Deuterocanonicals to one degree or another. Only Protestants - who only go back 500 years - are out of step on this issue. All of that is irrefutable. You can’t refute any of it. Failure in argumentation is your only option.
At this point, you’re just arguing semantics and repeating yourself instead of actually making arguments.
As for that link you keep posting (just to a bookstore, not even an actual source or citation), I doubt it’s relevant. After all, if I posted a book by a heretical ex-Catholic critiquing Catholic doctrine, you would not accept that as a valid source, so why should we accept your book by a heretical ex-Orthodox critiquing Orthodox doctrine?
“At this point, you’re just arguing semantics and repeating yourself instead of actually making arguments.”
My point is the same and is still irrefutable: All the ancient Churches used the Deuterocanonicals to one degree or another. Only Protestants - who only go back 500 years - are out of step on this issue. All of that is irrefutable. You can’t refute any of it. Failure in argumentation is your only option.
At this point all you’re doing is complaining about semantics and not showing that I am wrong in any way, shape or form. That will continue, undoubtedly, at this rate.
“As for that link you keep posting (just to a bookstore, not even an actual source or citation),”
Here are the links you ignored:
No. http://www.cuf.org/2004/04/the-complete-bible-why-catholics-have-seven-more-books/
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/jerome.html
http://taylormarshall.com/2011/09/did-st-jerome-reject-deuterocanoical.html
http://shamelesspopery.com/st-jerome-on-the-deuterocanon/
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html
Time to put up or shut up. What will it be?
“I doubt it’s relevant.”
It is. Most importantly, however, is the fact that you just demonstrated that you have never read the book but insist you know what you’re talking about. Thanks for proving that your statement about knowing about the subject is untrue.
“After all, if I posted a book by a heretical ex-Catholic critiquing Catholic doctrine, you would not accept that as a valid source, so why should we accept your book by a heretical ex-Orthodox critiquing Orthodox doctrine?”
He is not critiquing Orthodox doctrine. He is upholding it. What he is critiquing is latter day heretical Orthodox doctrine. If you can’t tell the difference, then you show again that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Also, Soloviev was given last rites by a Russian Orthodox priest. He was NEVER ex-Orthodox.
You will continue to show that what I said was irrefutably true.
“All the ancient Churches used the Deuterocanonicals to one degree or another. Only Protestants - who only go back 500 years - are out of step on this issue.”
Nonsense, Protestants include them in their Bibles as well, they just don’t hold them to be on the same level as the Old Testament, a view that was entirely acceptable in the church at large until AFTER the Protestants departed from the Catholic church.
“Here are the links you ignored:”
Now you’re accusing me of ignoring things you never posted to me?!?
“Most importantly, however, is the fact that you just demonstrated that you have never read the book but insist you know what you’re talking about.”
I never claimed to have read the book, and I’m not about to go buy it and read it just because you seem enamored with it. The fact is, all the really relevant sources as to what the churches believed in ancient times about the canon are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN because they are centuries or millenia old, so there really is no need to be focusing on your favorite amazon page when it comes to this subject.
“He is not critiquing Orthodox doctrine. He is upholding it. What he is critiquing is latter day heretical Orthodox doctrine.”
Bwahahaha! This as fine example of pretzel logic as I’ve ever seen. So the heretic who left the Orthodox church, and you, a non-Orthodox, get to decide what Orthodox doctrine is, instead of the actual authorities and members of the Orthodox church. Sure, that sounds legit.
“both Jesus and the Apostles quoted and treated them as such”
They did not quote them or treat them “as such”, because as the article we are all commenting on shows, they quote the Hebrew scriptures in a different manner from how they quoted the apocrypha.
They also quoted other works that were never considered Scripture by anyone before or since as well, but I don’t hear you or anyone else making the argument that those books should become Scripture just because they are quoted in the NT. Yet, if your argument is valid, you should be consistent and argue or those books to be included as well.
If all the books were indisputably accepted as fully canonical -- (hint; for long ages they simply were not) why the invention of the term "deuterocanon" in era of Trent, and why in the voting among assembled bishops was the vote to include Apocrypha (St. Jerome's term for the books in dispute) not unanimous?
It should have been unanimous if those writings had long held full acceptance, were considered fully on par with what Jews refer to as Tanakh.
Jerome (mid-4th to early 5th century) wrote of the Apocrypha as being "ecclesiastical writings" worthy of being read in church, but not (as Jerome clearly stated) to be used as basis for church doctrine. In saying so, Jerome was following predecessors from within the Church as it was in his own era, and (I think it reasonable to assume) had that thinking much ratified within himself during his extended stay among the Jews --in Ceasarea, I think it was...
Without going into precisely what Augustine may have written in that regard, what do [Roman] Catholics think when reading Jerome's introductions to each book of what is today referred to among Catholics as deuterocanon wherein he most definitely labeled those books as not fully canonical?
I've seen a few treatments, but boy, howdy... how they tie their own thinking in veritable knots, stringing together far-flung cherry-picking obtained, isolated quotations from here and there, massaging those greatly, doing so while studiously avoiding all evidences and testimonies that would serve to refute an apparent cherished view, that seems to me goes something like this;
Jerome's comments survived in Latin texts of Scripture up to early in the 16th century, and as I understand it, can be found in in the Complutensian Polyglot sponsored by Cardinal Cisnero, a man who has been labeled as having been strongly puritan in outlook.
Another from early in the 16th century, one who was sent to confront (and correct) Luther (but not pertaining to bible canon) Cardinal Cajetan;
"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. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," cited by William Whitaker in "A Disputation on Holy Scripture," Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)
Additional reference support for the above, provided by William Webster on his treatment of the same citation of Cajetan; See also Cosin's A Scholastic History of the Canon, Volume III, Chapter XVII, pp. 257-258 and B.F. Westcott's A General Survey of the Canon of the New Testament, p. 475.)
From down-page at the following link (nearer to bottom than top of page), one which I do not demand nor expect to be taken entirely without reservation in the writer's (the William Webster mentioned above) own commentary portions, but which nonetheless has all in one place a [partial] listing of commentary regarding OT canon historical viewpoint from within the Church; http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/canon.html
13th CenturyThe Ordinary Gloss upon the Bible known as the Glossa Ordinaria - This became the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the Western Church as a whole. The New Catholic Encyclopedia describes its importance:
A designation given during the Middle Ages to certain compilations of "glosses" on the text of a given MS. The earliest glossa ordinaria is that made of the Bible, probably made in the 12th century...Although glosses originally consisted of a few words only, they grew in length as glossators enlarged them with their own comments and quotations from the Fathers. Thus the tiny gloss evolved into a running commentary of an entire book. The best-known commentary of this type is the vast Glossa ordinaria of the 12th and 13th centuries...So great was the influence of the Glossa ordinaria on Biblical and philisophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called "the tongue of Scripture" and "the bible of scholasticism" (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, Glossa Ordinaria; Glosses, Biblical, pp. 515-516).
The Glossa ordinaria states in the Preface that the Church permits the reading of the apocryphal books only for devotion and instruction in manners, but that they have no authority for concluding controversies in matters of Faith. It goes on to state that there are 22 books of the OT. In listing those 22 books it uses the testimonies of Origen, Jerome and Rufinus as support and when commenting on the apocyphal books it prefixes an introduction to them all saying: ‘Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; Here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiaticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc.'
Now that I've (not W. Webster here) provided information and links which do include display of real & genuine history, (and did answer the question -- "what Protestants think when reading Saint Augustine") I suppose I could thank you for the 'heads up' which you had provided.
You began your note with #Fakehistory, which was what flowed from your keyboard from then on...
That's not all your own fault though, I think, but likely more due to having been misinformed by [Roman] Catholic apologists on this issue who have long sought to use this issue as some sort of beat-down device to be wielded against so-called "Protestants", with (sad to say?) men such as Webster, in his own opposition to misinformation long promulgated from within [Roman] Catholic circles, "wielding" the issue as beat-down device also, figuratively swinging for their heads, it seems to me from here in the cheap-seats peanut gallery.
What does matter in all of this, why this issue is so important, is just what precisely Jesus Christ came to fulfill -- and what He did not.
In regards to the contents of what Catholics refer to as deuterocanon, that needs be identified and differentiated. As for that deuterocanon (aka OT Apocrypha); Jerome, Cajetan and many, many other well informed, erudite churchmen of old cautioned was not to be sourced for basis of doctrine, although fit to be read from within Church, and thus by extension isolated passages from those "ecclesiatical writings" (not to be confused with remainder of Holy Writ) for better or for worse ...did end up within portions of Church liturgy, some passages arriving there, from quite early on within Church History (as Jerome, and all the rest of the demurral supplying dissenters would be quite aware of, even when they raised precautionary flags of sort).
As I would caution; so-called "deuterocanon" should be set aside for finer-grained filtering, sifting out those things which have no real continual support, no "golden threads" of constancy of message from what is indisputably OT (Old Testament, Jewish "bible" aka Tanakh) and which thematic threads are also supported widely throughout the New Testament.
You repeat, “My point is the same and is still irrefutable”. Your self righteous pride will be your undoing. May God have mercy upon 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.