Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

"While you and Kosta are very learned, you can't tell me that there aren't plenty of new or otherwise unlearned, English speaking Orthodox out there, whose English Bibles are so full of errors that they are virtually unusable." I wouldn't tell you that because what you say is true. English versions of the Bible are full of errors and therefore Orthodox people, learned or unlearned, cradle or convert know that the only safe way to understand the Bible is to read it in light of what The Church has always taught. If we read the Bible in Greek, we see the religion of The Apostles and The Fathers. Some posts back I set out a quote from John Kalomiros commenting that the problems about which we are speaking have their origins in language and culture. I have seen over my lifetime that Americans especially have a difficult time understanding that different cultures have very, very different views of how the world goes around. Anglophones have a difficult time understanding that not everything can be clearly expressed in English. The West's understanding of "sin" is simply not what the Greek means, now or when it was written. None of the foregoing means that there is some sort of universal salvation; none of the foregoing means that those who fail of their created purpose, choosing rather to reject God in favor of the self, will not suffer indescribable, flaming torment by being scourged with the love of God as those who have become like Christ will be embraced and comforted by that same love. There is no way to fully describe the horrors which await the damned, but there is no question but that their torment is a result of their own rejection of God, not God's rejection of them, and that which torments them is precisely what will mean bliss for those who have met the mark. "Now, excellent scholars can disagree on the definitions of Greek words, just as they can with English words. Hence, we have more than one reputable English dictionary. But the Orthodox do not recognize this fact at all. Comparatively, the Orthodox would say that the American Heritage Dictionary was full of lies because no one related to Noah Webster contributed to it, but Webster's Dictionary was 100% truth because only a Webster could ever understand English. Even the Latins resist this approach. Is it really intellectually honest to say that ONLY Orthodox scholars, throughout time, have ever understood the true Greek?" FK, neither Kosta nor I are saying that Webster's or the American Heritage are mis-defining English words. We are saying that "sin" as defined in English is not the same word as "Αμαρτια" in Greek. An English dictionary doesn't deal with that. I don't mean to make this any more complex than it already is, but there are a number of words used theologically where we see the same problem; the West thinks it has translated a Greek word into a Western word with the same meaning, but it hasn't and that leads to trouble. Arguably it has worked that way in the East too, with the schism with the Monophysites arising out of the non-congruence of Greek and Syriac. Finally, I think it is distinctly possible that the only people who have truly understood the NT, as far as we do understand it, are those who understand it in concordance with what the Orthodox Church teaches.

Sorry about the formatting!

HD asked what "Αμαρτια" means. In English it is translated as "sin" with all the understood meanings of that word. The Greek word however means, as FK pointed out, a "missing of the mark", the "mark" being Christ. If you think about it for a minute, this meaning of "Αμαρτια" lies at the base of most of Eastern Christian theology while the Western misunderstanding of the word lies at the base of Western theology, especially the Protestant form of Augustinian theology. "While you and Kosta are very learned, you can't tell me that there aren't plenty of new or otherwise unlearned, English speaking Orthodox out there, whose English Bibles are so full of errors that they are virtually unusable."

I wouldn't tell you that because what you say is true. English versions of the Bible are full of errors and therefore Orthodox people, learned or unlearned, cradle or convert know that the only safe way to understand the Bible is to read it in light of what The Church has always taught. If we read the Bible in Greek, we see the religion of The Apostles and The Fathers. Some posts back I set out a quote from John Kalomiros commenting that the problems about which we are speaking have their origins in language and culture. I have seen over my lifetime that Americans especially have a difficult time understanding that different cultures have very, very different views of how the world goes around. Anglophones have a difficult time understanding that not everything can be clearly expressed in English. The West's understanding of "sin" is simply not what the Greek means, now or when it was written. None of the foregoing means that there is some sort of universal salvation; none of the foregoing means that those who fail of their created purpose, choosing rather to reject God in favor of the self, will not suffer indescribable, flaming torment by being scourged with the love of God as those who have become like Christ will be embraced and comforted by that same love. There is no way to fully describe the horrors which await the damned, but there is no question but that their torment is a result of their own rejection of God, not God's rejection of them, and that which torments them is precisely what will mean bliss for those who have met the mark.

"Now, excellent scholars can disagree on the definitions of Greek words, just as they can with English words. Hence, we have more than one reputable English dictionary. But the Orthodox do not recognize this fact at all. Comparatively, the Orthodox would say that the American Heritage Dictionary was full of lies because no one related to Noah Webster contributed to it, but Webster's Dictionary was 100% truth because only a Webster could ever understand English. Even the Latins resist this approach. Is it really intellectually honest to say that ONLY Orthodox scholars, throughout time, have ever understood the true Greek?"

FK, neither Kosta nor I are saying that Webster's or the American Heritage are mis-defining English words. We are saying that "sin" as defined in English is not the same word as "Αμαρτια" in Greek. An English dictionary doesn't deal with that. I don't mean to make this any more complex than it already is, but there are a number of words used theologically where we see the same problem; the West thinks it has translated a Greek word into a Western word with the same meaning, but it hasn't and that leads to trouble. Arguably it has worked that way in the East too, with the schism with the Monophysites arising out of the non-congruence of Greek and Syriac. Finally, I think it is distinctly possible that the only people who have truly understood the NT, as far as we do understand it, are those who understand it in concordance with what the Orthodox Church teaches.

“”By the way, Jerome as did the early church rejected the deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture too.””

That is another protestant myth as well.The Church Fathers regularly quoted the Deuts as inspired scripture in many of their writings

Some examples of Saint Jerome..

Does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’ [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

St. Jerome himself calls Sirach, which he had referred to as non-canonical, as Scripture. Thus, in practice, to support doctrine, he calls it Scripture. This quotation, even if there were no other quotations from him on the Deuterocanonicals, show that his view on what is and is not Scripture can not be seen from his earlier citation.

Here is more...

“”Do not, my dearest brother, estimate my worth by the number of my years. Gray hairs are not wisdom; it is wisdom which is as good as gray hairs At least that is what Solomon says: “wisdom is the gray hair unto men.’ [Wisdom 4:9]” Moses too in choosing the seventy elders is told to take those whom he knows to be elders indeed, and to select them not for their years but for their discretion (Num. 11:16)? And, as a boy, Daniel judges old men and in the flower of youth condemns the incontinence of age (Daniel 13:55-59, or Story of Susannah 55-59, only found in the Catholic Bibles) Jerome, To Paulinus, Epistle 58 (A.D. 395), in NPNF2, VI:119

Here St. Jerome mixes use of the Book of Wisdom with Moses’ writing. In the midst of referring to Moses, he also refers to the Story of Susanna to establish a point. He makes no distinction in practice from the writing of Moses, from the two Deuterocanonical books.

And more....

“I would cite the words of the psalmist: ‘the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel ‘I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,’Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS.” Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

Notice how Jerome makes no distinction at all between the Psalmist, Ezekiel, and Baruch. They are all Scripture, God’s Word. Also, contrary to Rhodes’ assertion that the Deuterocanonicals had no prophets, Jerome himself calls Baruch a prophet, thus according his writing Scriptural status. According to Jerome, Baruch thus authoritatively spoke God’s Word. He uses Baruch in tandem with these prophets to prove David in Psalm 51 correct.

“”still our merriment must not forget the limit set by Scripture, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the sacred volume, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah,(Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.””(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384), in NPNF2, VI:45

Notice that St. Jerome quotes in reference to Scriptures, and the Sacred Volumes. Then he refers to 3 passages. Ezekiel, Baruch, and Matthew. Now, St. Jerome here refers to Jeremiah giving letters (plural) to Baruch. One time in Jeremiah 36, and another time in Baruch 6.

And more from Saint Jerome

“”As in good works it is God who brings them to perfection, for it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that pitieth and gives us help that we may be able to reach the goal: so in things wicked and sinful, the seeds within us give the impulse, and these are brought to maturity by the devil. When he sees that we are building upon the foundation of Christ, hay, wood, stubble, then he applies the match. Let us then build gold, silver, costly stones, and he will not venture to tempt us: although even thus there is not sure and safe possession. For the lion lurks in ambush to slay the innocent. [Sir. 27:5] “Potters’ vessels are proved by the furnace, and just men by the trial of tribulation.” And in another place it is written: [Sir. 2:1] “My son, when thou comest to serve the Lord, prepare thyself for temptation.” Again, the same James says: [James 3:22]”Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only. For if any one is a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.” It was useless to warn them to add works to faith, if they could not sin after baptism.”” Jerome, Against Jovinianus,, Book 2, 3 NPNF2, VI:390

As we have seen, “It is written” is a phrase that both the authors of Scripture, and the Church Fathers use only in reference to Scripture. Jerome uses the phrase identifying the quote to come as Scripture. The quote he uses comes from the book of Sirach. Thus, Sirach is Scripture. He then quotes James interchangeably as just another Scripture as of the same level of authority as Sirach.
“Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: “For all that every man walketh in the image.”(Psalm 39:6) Also after David’s time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the book of Wisdom, which is inscribed with his name, Solomon says: “God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.”(Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above—that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen—teaches us that man does possess God’s image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: “It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.”(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the “chosen vessel,”(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. “A man,” he says, “ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of “the image” simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word “glory.”

Taken from http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St.%20Jerome,%20[347-419/420%20A.D]

Dear Jo kus did a well researched post on the early Church Fathers and the Deuts as well.

Here it is from.. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1748533/posts?page=7414#7414

The Church Fathers over and over spoke of the DEUTEROCANNONICALS (Apocrypha is the term given to “hidden” writings, not writings that came into the cannon after some discussion, such as 2 Peter or Wisdom) as being Scriptures. They often discussed a theological point, proofing it with a Protocannonical work and IN THE SAME SENTENCE using a Dueterocannonical work. Thus, in context, they considered that the Deut writing had the exact SAME force as the Proto work of Scriptures.

For example, consider this...

“What, then, again says the prophet? ‘The assembly of the wicked surrounded me; they encompassed me as bees do a honeycomb,’[Ps. 22:17,118:12] and ‘upon my garment they cast lots’[Ps. 22:19]. Since, therefore, He was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, His suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against Israel, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counselted an evil counsel against themselves[Isa. 3:9,] saying, Let us bind the just one, because he is displeasing to us’[Wisdom 2:12]. And Moses also says to them, ‘Behold these things, saith the Lord God: Enter into the good land which the Lord sware tto give to Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and inherit ye it, a land flowing with milk and honey’[Ex. 33:1, Lev. 20:24].” Epistle of Barnabas, 6 (A.D. 74).

As any unbiased individual can see, the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas considered the Book of Wisdom to be Scriptural, using a verse from it with the same force in the same sentence as a verse from Isaiah and surrounded by other Scriptures from the Protocanonical books. From such writings, we can determine that many other Fathers considered other books as Scriptures.

Nearly a year ago, some other gentleman on this forum challenged me to prove this idea that the Deuterocanonicals were Scriptures as determined by the Church Fathers. As such, I did some extensive research and found the following. This is a transcript with what I have posted here before...

OT Deuterocanonicals explicitly accepted as Scripture

Epistle of Barnabas Wisdom

Clement of Rome Wisdom

Didache Sirach

Polycarp Tobit

Melito of Sardes gives a list including Daniel and Wisdom, possibly Baruch

Irenaeus Daniel (*see below) and Baruch

Tertullian Wisdom, Daniel, and Baruch

Muratorian Fragment gives a list including Wisdom in the NT

Clement of Alexandria Sirach, Baruch, Tobit and Wisdom

Hippolytus Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom, Baruch and Daniel

Origen Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach

Cyprian Maccabees, Wisdom, Daniel, Tobit and Sirach

Dionysius the Great Wisdom, Sirach

Lactanius Sirach

Alexander of Alexandria Sirach

Aphraates the Persian Sage Maccabees and Sirach

Cyril of Jerusalem includes a “canon” list with 2nd Esdras Daniel and Baruch. He later calls Wisdom Scripture, indicating that canon does not equal Scripture, as we define it. Canon means those books to be proclaimed at Mass.

Athanasius Baruch, Daniel, Sirach and Tobit he calls Scripture explicitly. He also lists Wisdom, Judith, Tobit as among those to be read for new converts. Note Tobit is on both lists, so he, like Cyril, does not equate canon with Scripture as we do today. The second list are not to be proclaimed during the Liturgy.

Basil Maccabees, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, Daniel and Sirach

Hilary of Poitiers Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, and Wisdom. He also lists Tobit and Judith in his list of Scripture.

Gregory of Nazianzen Daniel, Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith

Gregory of Nyssa Wisdom, Daniel

Ambrose Wisdom, Judith, Daniel, Baruch, Maccabees, Tobit and Sirach

Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382). All Deuterocanonicals of Roman Catholic Church included.

John Chrysostom Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees, and Daniel

Jerome lists 1st Maccabees and later Sirach (called “Parables” in Hebrew form) as Scripture and discounts the other Deuterocanonicals SOLELY on the grounds that there are no Hebrew versions of them (this is why he includes 1st Maccabees and later Sirach). He also equates Baruch with Scripture right along with Ezekiel.

Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).

Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).

* (all references to Daniel refer to the longer Septuagint, not Hebrew version.)

(This list is not found on the internet, but a result of my own reading and research - I give permission for others to copy and use this as they see fit.)

I stop at 400 AD. The above shows that there was a developing idea of these books and whether they were inspired works of God. As time continues, we see more of the Deuterocanonicals were declared as inspired Scripture, right alongside other Protocanonicals. A Father’s failure to mention a book as Scripture is not evidence of his exclusion. Also, there is NO evidence to suggest, besides Jerome, that ANY Father thought that the Deuterocanonicals were NOT inspired or Scripture. I have not found one instance of this negative being mentioned explicitly. With the evidence, it becomes clear that we can safely conclude that the Catholic Church correctly decided to incorporate the Deuterocanonicals into the Bible and declare all books thus as Scripture and inspired by God. We have no reason to believe that they were poorly informed or purposely mislead the future Church on the subject of what was Scripture. It becomes apparent that continuing to hold to this idea shows a philosophy without justification.

In the end, those who refuse to accept the Old Testament Deuts are going to have to explain why they accept the NEW Testament Deuts, such as James, 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter in their Scriptures, as THEY TOO were debated initially. Why the NT but not the OT Deuts??? Can anyone deny that there are theological reasons for why Luther cast them out of the Bible?

BTW, MLG,You did not answer my question as to- if you are one of the people who believe in the serpent seed idea that eve had intercourse with satan and produced cain?

Do you believe this heretical teaching?

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.