Posted on 12/15/2018 4:10:34 AM PST by sparklite2
So there it is. It's all there.
I now see.
It did NOT leap out at me until I saw the offending phrase quoted.
Gosh; I guess that stating the churches official position on suicide has to be done with the greatest of finesse - know your audience.
Is this thread still going on?
Seems like a solid homily. Nothing objectionable there.
Indeed it is not dogma, except as evidently contended for by devout RCs, without correction from Rome. If only the principle of Co-Redemptrix" being disallowed by Ratzinger as solemnly defined since it "departs too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” were applied to other Catholic teachings not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
And ah, since common souls around 25 AD do not have the authority to define what was from God (men and writings) then does that mean they were wrong, and in rebellion to God, as RCs place all who claim authority without being sanctioned by her?
And if an infallible church is essential to know what Scripture consists of, as RC theology teaches, and for preservation of the faith, then how could a body of Scripture become established as being so and authoritative before there was a church which presume she was essential for this? And how could faith be preserved, if as usual, among a relative remnant.
And what is your basis for assurance that what the Catholic claims is true? The weight of evidence as with evangelicals in principle, or because an faithful church has told you? Which is correct?
Oh the questions.
You could make some money though!
Indeed it is not dogma, except as evidently contended for by devout RCs, without correction from Rome. If only the principle of Co-Redemptrix" being disallowed by Ratzinger as solemnly defined since it "departs too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” were applied to other Catholic teachings not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
Give'em time....the Fifth Marian dogma will be proclaimed. There is a growing movement to have this....just like the other Marian dogmas.
We get the canon from what was received and accepted by the Ekklesia, as ealgeone said. I ardently agree with that.
We get the canon from what was received and accepted by the Ekklesia, as ealgeone said. I ardently agree with that.
"The work reached its final form in a five-chapter text written by an anonymous scholar between 519 and 553, the second chapter of which is a list of books of Scripture presented as having been made Canonical by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, bishop of Rome 366–383."
See also Decretum Gelasianum
Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. You can see for yourself that the books identified as Scripture exhibited very substantial continuity: Trent merely recognized and certified more than a millennium worth of Christian liturgical practice.
Rather, the canon saw disagreement among scholars - a minority but substantial - down through centuries and right in the council , and parroting RCs presenting the canon as having been settled from the 4th c. onward (which makes Luther some sort of maverick rebel), and that Trent merely affirmed it is part of the RC propaganda that has been refuted so many times before. Thus your reply does not refute the premise that "Roman Catholicism didn't finalize their canon until Trent," as finalize meaning to make the majority position now indisputable, as an article of faith with its anathemas, though that was after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%)
"Usually " bit not always.
If the identical same catalogue of books (canon) documented to be extant in 382 AD, 405 AD, all the way through 1546 AD (Trent) and continuing to 2018 AD (now) --- that is, 1600+ years of continuity --- is considered unsettled, it's you who have a problem.
How, how can you honestly deny the well-substantiated fact that it was not settled, that In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon after the death of Luther.
Or do you define "settled" as meaning a majority but not binding view, with scholars of very high esteem able to disagree, without censure?
● Jerome (340-420), the preeminent 3rd century scholar rejected the Apocrypha, as they did not have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and were not received by all, and did not generally work toward "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church." His lists of the 24 books of the O.T. Scriptures corresponds to the 39 of the Protestant canon,
Jerome wrote in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings,
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] 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.
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)
Some think Jerome later defended the apocrypha based on comments about Daniel, but which is countered here
● Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 367), excluded the Book of Esther (which never actually mentions God and its canonicity was disputed among Jews for some time) among the "7 books not in the canon but to be read" along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_of_Alexandria#New_Testament_canon)
Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390) concurred with the canon of Anastasius.
● The list of O.T. books by the Council of Laodicea (363) may have been added later, and is that of Athanasius but with Esther included. It also contains the standard canon of the N.T. except that it omits Revelation, as does Cyril, thought to be due to excessive use of it by the Montanist cults
● John of Damascus, eminent theologian of the Eastern Church in the 8th century, and Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople in the 9th century also rejected the apocrypha, as did others, in part or in whole.
● The fourth century historian Euesibius also provides an early Christian list of both Old and New Testament books. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324), in three places quoting from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place 'the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;' and again,'the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;' and, lastly, 'the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.' In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the 'Divine Scriptures;' and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as 'controverted' books. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html)
● Cyril of Jerusalem (d. circa. 385 AD) exhorts his readers “Of these read the two and twenty books, but have nothing to do with the apocryphal writings. Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes. And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if thou art desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them.” (http://www.bible-researcher.com/cyril.html)
His lists supports the canon adopted by the Protestants, combining books after the Hebrew canon and excludes the apocrypha, though he sometimes used them, as per the standard practice by which the apocrypha was printed in Protestant Bibles, and includes Baruch as part of Jeremiah.
● Likewise Rufinus:
38.But it should also be known that there are other books which are called not "canonical" but "ecclesiastical" by the ancients: 5 that is, the Wisdom attributed to Solomon, and another Wisdom attributed to the son of Sirach, which the Latins called by the title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book but its character. To the same class belong the book of Tobit and the book of Judith, and the books of Maccabees.
With the New Testament there is the book which is called the Shepherd of Hermas, and that which is called The Two Ways 6 and the Judgment of Peter.7 They were willing to have all these read in the churches but not brought forward for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they named "apocrypha,"8 which they would not have read in the churches.
These are what the fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God they should draw for drinking. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/rufinus.html)
●Summing up most of the above, the Catholic Encyclopedia states,
At Jerusalem there was a renascence, perhaps a survival, of Jewish ideas, the tendency there being distinctly unfavourable to the deuteros. St. Cyril of that see, while vindicating for the Church the right to fix the Canon, places them among the apocrypha and forbids all books to be read privately which are not read in the churches. In Antioch and Syria the attitude was more favourable. St. Epiphanius shows hesitation about the rank of the deuteros; he esteemed them, but they had not the same place as the Hebrew books in his regard. The historian Eusebius attests the widespread doubts in his time; he classes them as antilegomena, or disputed writings, and, like Athanasius, places them in a class intermediate between the books received by all and the apocrypha. The 59th (or 60th) canon of the provincial Council of Laodicea (the authenticity of which however is contested) gives a catalogue of the Scriptures entirely in accord with the ideas of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Oriental versions and Greek manuscripts of the period are more liberal; the extant ones have all the deuterocanonicals and, in some cases, certain apocrypha.
The influence of Origen's and Athanasius's restricted canon naturally spread to the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers and Rufinus followed their footsteps, excluding the deuteros from canonical rank in theory, but admitting them in practice. The latter styles them "ecclesiastical" books, but in authority unequal to the other Scriptures. St. Jerome cast his weighty suffrage on the side unfavourable to the disputed books... (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament, eph. mine)
● The Catholic Encyclopedia also states as regards the Middle Ages,
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)
But tell me, because I'd really like to know: who authorized the 16th century revised (or, as you might say, "reformed") canon used by your denomination? What person or group of persons by name? What year or even decade, by date? I'd like to look up these gentlemen and check out by what authority, or what qualifications, they claimed the right to determine the Scriptural canon.
Then you need to actually answer my questions of post 388 , and ask your question of the 1st c. souls who held to a canon of Scripture as authoritative before the Lord even was born, but thus to which the NT appealed to as its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. How could they even hold that John the baptizer was a prophet indeed, or the book of Isaiah if they needed an authoritative infallible church to tell them?
Then since the canon of Scripture that we see manifestly established as authoritative by the 1st century did not need an authoritative infallible church to tell them, and lacked the official authority and qualifications to determine who the itinerant Preacher from Messiah who also affirmed them was, then your "argument from authority" is contrary to how the NT church even began.
Go back an actually answer all my questions.
I see. Thanks.
We are not to read minds, but that history, tradition and Scripture only authoritatively mean what Rome says is stated in Catholic polemics. And that the one duty of RC laity is to follow their pastors as docile sheep is papal teaching. But stating this can result in examples of how Catholic teaching can be subject to interpretation.
And you have the insurmountable disadvantage of having queers and pedophiles as your authority protected by the flimsy defense of Peter being the sole "rock" upon which the Church was built. Not to mention ignoring history as to when the Pope transitioned from merely being "first in honor" because Rome was the capital city to first in power.
1) When talking about the canon of Scripture, veering straight off-topic and throwing the bloody chum about queers and pedophiles into the sea is shark-bait, not advancing the conversation.
People who betray Catholic faith and morals, do damnable things. How is that new, or even relevant? The 46 books of the OT show God's Chosen People with regular frequency abandoning the Lord and whoring after World, the Flesh and the Devil. That does not mean that God's Prophets were no longer God's Prophets, nor that God's Laws were no longer God's Laws.
What it means is that, then as now, when you're do God's will you're blameless, and when you don't, you're not.
In other words, the betrayers of the Church are not "the Church," and the infidelity of those who betray the Church does not cancel out God's fidelity. The Church is not the Mystical Body of Francisco Coccopalmerio or Ted McCarrick or Jorge Bergoglio, it's the Mystical Body of Christ.
2) Rome was not the "capital" of the Church because it was the capital of the Empire. Rome, a crumbling city even by the third century of the Church's existence, lost its political hegemony very early indeed, when the brilliant city of Constantinople was made capital in the East, followed quickly by he sacking of Rome by barbarians in the West.
It was not renowned as the greatest city. Even Alexandria surpassed it. I was renowned because it was the city where SS Peter and Paul were martyred, Peter being at that time Bishop of Rome. (He had previously been Bishop of Antioch.)
The formal structures for carrying on St. Peter's ministry have shifted significantly over the centuries, and his See has been occupied at times both by saints and scalawags.
This does not negate the precious promises of Christ, in Whom I put my trust, that He would be with us always. He is God, and can neither deceive, nor be deceived.
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.