Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 11/06/2011 4:29:37 AM PST by markomalley
I challenge you to show me exact quotes from the Catholic teachers who supposedly regarded these books of the Bible as “apocryphal.”
The argument that the Council of Trent “added” these books to the Bible is a strawman. These books have been used by Christians since the beginning.
St. Clement of Rome, for example, cites the Book of Judith in his letter to the Corinthians AFTER the Palestianian Jews threw it out of their canon.
Every local church had its own canon. Some churches regarded the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians as scripture.
Perhaps James,Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John and Revelation should be thrown into the apocrypha using your reasoning about the Old Testament scriptures because their inspiration was doubted by many for about 200 years.
Even Martin Luther doubted their authenticity. And considering you don’t accept any Church councils, why not believe the Gnostic books are more authentic.
If the Church is fallible then so is the canon.
The Eastern Church has always called them simply “canonical.”
“Then using your reasoning for what is or is not canonical, shouldn’t you add the Book of Enoch to your canon?”
No, for reasons I’ve repeated to you a half dozen times in the last 2 weeks.
“I challenge you to show me exact quotes from the Catholic teachers who supposedly regarded these books of the Bible as “apocryphal.”
Jerome:
“As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two Volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.”
“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 not found in our list must be placed amongst 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 are not in the 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 Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus 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.”
“If the Church is fallible then so is the canon.”
No. God’s Word - God-breathed, His breath - does not fall under the authority of councils of the Roman Catholic Church...which cannot even figure out which books were in the Apocrypha, and thus left 3 out when listing them in Trent.
“please tell me where God provides a table of contents for the canon or does God communicate to you directly the canon?”
God works in the hearts of Christians, to confirm or deny. And while any individual Christian may misjudge, the bulk will not. That is why the bulk of the canon was settled and accepted before 150 AD, although there were no councils to review it.
God alone is infallible. His breath is likewise. Men in the church? Not infallible. Including the Pope.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
“The Ordinary Gloss, known as the Glossa ordinaria, is an important witness to the position of the Western Church on the status of the Apocrypha because it was the standard authoritative biblical commentary for the whole Western Church. It carried immense authority and was used in all the schools for the training of theologians. 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 philosophical studies in the Middle Ages that it was called ‘the tongue of Scripture’ and ‘the bible of scholasticism’...
...the following is an excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria written in AD 1498, also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century, under the title of canonical and non-canonical books. It begins by explaining the distinctions that should be maintained between the canonical and non-canonical or Apocryphal books:
Many people, who do not give much attention to the holy scriptures, think that all the books contained in the Bible should be honored and adored with equal veneration, not knowing how to distinguish among the canonical and non-canonical books, the latter of which the Jews number among the apocrypha. Therefore they often appear ridiculous before the learned; and they are disturbed and scandalized when they hear that someone does not honor something read in the Bible with equal veneration as all the rest. Here, then, we distinguish and number distinctly first the canonical books and then the non-canonical, among which we further distinguish between the certain and the doubtful.
The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. For just as in philosophy a truth is known through reduction to self-evident first principles, so too, in the writings handed down from holy teachers, the truth is known, as far as those things that must be held by faith, through reduction to the canonical scriptures that have been produced by divine revelation, which can contain nothing false. Hence, concerning them Augustine says to Jerome: To those writers alone who are called canonical I have learned to offer this reverence and honor: I hold most firmly that none of them has made an error in writing. Thus if I encounter something in them which seems contrary to the truth, I simply think that the manuscript is incorrect, or I wonder whether the translator has discovered what the word means, or whether I have understood it at all. But I read other writers in this way: however much they abound in sanctity or teaching, I do not consider what they say true because they have judged it so, but rather because they have been able to convince me from those canonical authors, or from probable arguments, that it agrees with the truth.124
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocrypha3.html
Also:
“Gregory the Great is a doctor of the Church and was bishop of Rome from A.D. 590-604. In his commentary on the book of Job he stated that the book of 1 Maccabees was not canonical:
With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46).131
This is significant, coming as it does from a bishop of Rome, who denied canonical status to 1 Maccabees long after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. But he taught that the book was useful for the purpose of edification, the same sentiment expressed by Jerome.”
God works in the hearts of Christians, to confirm or deny. And while any individual Christian may misjudge, the bulk will not. That is why the bulk of the canon was settled and accepted before 150 AD, although there were no councils to review it.
interesting, “the bulk will not”
i agree with you, it is how we know the Catholic Faith is true. the Holy Spirit led the Church to all truth.
now, since it was not only the bulk of Christians, but ALL Christians believed in baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist before the 16th century.
how is that possible since the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of men and the bulk of Christians will not misjudge?
from prior posts, i know you deny both doctrines, yet to use your canon logic, the doctrines must be true.
care to comment?
“now, since it was not only the bulk of Christians, but ALL Christians believed in baptismal regeneration and the Eucharist before the 16th century.”
It was not ALL christians. If you read the ‘church fathers’, you will find they don’t fully agree on anything.
And while I believe God will judge us based in large part on what we could know, the large majority of Christians were not able to read the scriptures, and the Catholic Church actively opposed them doing so.
The scriptures were given in part so we WOULD know God’s will, and the large majority of people were denied access by the church - probably because the church was in defiance of God’s truth.
If the Apostles say one thing, and your church says another, I’ll side with the Apostles and leave myself in God’s hands - with confidence.
The idea that a priest touching a baby with a wet finger could result in the baby becoming a Christian is repulsive to the scriptures. That was substituting magic for the power of God. And those who promoted that system by enforcing ignorance and defying God’s word will face God’s punishment.
“9But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.” 11And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed...
...Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 18Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, 19saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” 24And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.” - Acts 8
When “priests” started following the example of Simon Magus, the church was led astray. When the water of baptism became what caused you to be born again, instead of recognition of the new birth and the baptism of the Holy Spirit by Jesus, the church went astray.
But the members, many of whom were sincere in their desire to follow God, will be judged justly by God, covered by the blood of the Lamb. I would not, however, want to be one of the Popes who opposed allowing people to read scripture!
St. Francis de Sales, the Catholic bishop of Geneva, writes the following in defense of Catholic doctrine against Calvin:
CHAPTER IV.
FIRST VIOLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES MADE BY THE REFORMERS: BY CUTTING OFF SOME OF ITS PARTS
Such are the sacred and canonical books which the Church has unanimously received and acknowledged during twelve hundred years. And by what authority have these new reformers dared to wipe out at one stroke so many noble parts of the Bible? They have erased a part of Esther, and Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees. Who has told them that these books are not legitimate, and not to be received? Why do they thus dismember the sacred body of the Scriptures?
Here are the principal reasons, as far as I have been able to gather from the old preface to the books which they pretend to be apocryphal, printed at Neufchastel, in the translation of Peter Robert, otherwise Olivetanus, a relation and friend of Calvin, and again from the newer preface placed to the same books by the professors and pretended pastors of the Churhc of Geneva, 1588.
1. They are not found either in Hebrew or Chaldaic, in which languages they (except perhaps the Book of Wisdom) were originally written: therefore it would be very difficult to restore them.
2. They are not received as legitimate by the Jews.
3. Nor by the whole Church.
4. S. Jerome says they are not considered proper for corroborating the authority of Ecclesiastical doctrines.
5. Canon Law condemns them;
6. as does also the Gloss, which says they are read, but not generally, as if to say that they are not approved generally everywhere.
7. They have been corrupted and falsified, as Eusebius says (Hist. Eccl. Iv. 22.);
8. notably the Machabees,
9. and particularly the Second of Machabees, which S. Jerome says he did not find in Hebrew. Such are the reasons of Olivetanus.
10. “There are in them many false things,” says the new preface.
Let us now see what these fine researches are worth.
1. And as to the first, are you unwilling to receive these books because they are not in Hebrew or Chaldaic? Receive Tobias then, for S. Jerome attests that he translates it from Chaldaic into Latin, in the Epistle which you yourselves quote, (Ep. Ad Chrom. et Heliod.) which makes me think oyu are hardly in good faith. And why not Judith, which was also written in Chaldaic, as the same S. Jerome says in the prologue? And if S. Jerome says he was not able to find the Second of Machabees in the Hebrew,- what has that to do with the first? This then receive as it deserves; we will treat of the second afterwards. I say the same to you about Ecclesiasticus, which S. Jerome had and found in Hebrew, as he says in his preface on the books of Solomon. Since, then, you reject these books written in Hebrew or Chaldaic equally with the others which are not written in one of these languages, you will have to find another pretext than that which you have alleged for striking out thee books from the canon. When you say that you reject them because they are not written in Hebrew or Chaldaic, this is not your real reason; for you would not reject on this ground Tobias, Judith, the first of Machabees, Ecclesiasticus, which are written either in Hebrew or Chaldaic. But let us now speak in defence of the other books, which are written in a language other than that which you would have. Where do you find that the rule for rightly receiving the Holy Scriptures is that they should be written in these languages rather thanin Greek or Latin? You say that nothing must be received in matter of religion but what is written; and you bring forward in your grand preface the saying of jurisconsults: “We blush to speak without a law.” Do you not consider that the controversy about the validity or invalidity of the Scriptures is one of the most important in the sphere of religion? Well then, either remain confounded, or else produce the Holy Scripture for the negative which you maintain. The Holy Spirit certainly declares Himself as well in Greek as in Chaldaic. There would be, you say, great difficulty in restoring them, since we do not possess them in their original language, and it is this which troubles you. But, for God’s sake, tell me who told you that they were lost, corrupted or altered, so as to need restoration? You take for granted, perhaps, that those who have translated them from the originals have translated badly, and you would have the original to compare them and judge them. Make your meaning clear then, and say that thery are therefore apocryphal because you cannot yourselves be the translators of them from the original, and cannot trust the judgment of the translator. So there is to be nothing certain except what you have had the control of. Show me this rule of certitude in the Scripture. Further, are you fully assured that you have the Hebrew texts of the books of the first rank, as pure and exact as they were in the time of the Apostles and of the Seventy? Beware of errors. You certainly do not aways follow then, and you could not, with good conscience. Show me this again in the Holy Scripture. Here, therefore, is your fisrt reason most wanting in reason.
2. As to your saying that these books which you call apocryphal are not received by the Jews, you say nothing new or important. S. Augustine loudly exclaims: “It is the Catholic Church which holds the Books of Machabees as canonical, not the Jews.” (De. Civ. Dei. Xviii. 36.) Show me from Scripture that the Christian Church has not as much power to give authority to the sacred books os the Mosaic may have had. There is not in this either Scripture or reason to show for it.
3. Yes, but the whole of the Church does not receive them, you say. Of what Church are you speaking? Unquestionably the Catholic, which is the true Church, receives them, as S. Augustine has just now borne witness to you, and he repeats it, citing the Council of Carthage. The Council in Trullo the 6th General, that of Florence, and a hundred ancient authors are thereto. I name S. Jerome, who witnesses for the book of Judith that it was received in the first Council [of Nice]. Perhaps you would say that of old time some Catholics doubted of their authority. This is clear from the division which I have made above. But does their doubt then make it impossible for their successors to come to a conclusion? Are we to say that if once cannot decide at the very first glance one must always remain waverign, uncertain, and irresolute? Was ther enot for some time an uncertainty about the Apocalypse and Esther? You would not dare to deny it: my witnesses for Esther are too sound, S. Athanasius (In Synopsi) and S. Gregory Nazainzen (In carm. de lib. sac.) : for the Apocalypse, the Council of Laodicea: and yet you receive them. Either receive them all, since they are in equal position, or receive none, on the same ground. But in God’s name what humour takes you that you here bring forward the Church, whose authority you hold to be a hundred times more uncertain than these books themselves, and which you say to have been erring, inconstant,- yea apocryphal, if apocryphal means hidden? You only prize it to despise it, and to make it appear inconstant, now recognizing, now rejecting these books.
But there is a great difference between doubting whether a thing is to be accepted and rejectign it. Doubt does nto hinder a subsequent resolution, indeed it is its preliminary stage. To reject presupposes a decision. Inconstancy does not consist in changing a doubt into resolution, but in changing from resolution to doubt. It is not instability to become settled after wavering, but to waver after being settled. The Church then, having for a time left these books in doubt, at length has received them with authentic decision, and you wish that from this resolution she should return into doubt. It belongs to heresy and not to the Church thus to advance from bad to worse. But of this elsewhere.
4. As for S. Jerome whom you allege, this is not to the purpose, since in his time the Church had not yet come to the resolution which she has come to since, as to the placing of these books on the canon, except that of Judith.
5. And the canon Sancta Romana, which is of Gelasius I.- I think you have taken it by guess, for it is entirely agaisnt you; because, while censuring the apocryphal books, it does not name one of these which we receive, but on the contrary witnesses that Tobias and the Macchabees were publicly received in the Church.
6. And the poor Gloss does not deserve to be thus glossed, since it clearly says that these books are read, though not perhaps generally. This “perhaps” guards it from stating what is false, and you have forgotten it. And if it reckons the books in question as apocryphal, this is because it considered that apocryphal meant the having no certain author, and thereofre it includes as apocryphal the Book of Judges: and their statements are not so authentic that they must pass as decisive judgment; after all it is but a Gloss.
7. And these falsifications which you allege are not in any way sufficient to abolish the authority of these books, because they have been justified and have been purified from all corruption before the Church received them. Truly, all the books of Holy Scripture have been corrupted by the ancient enemies of the Church, but by the providence of God they have remained free and pure in the Church’s hands, as a sacred deposit; and they have never been able to spoil so many copies as that there should not remain enough to restore the others.
8.But you woould have the Machabees, at any rate, fall from our hands, when you say that they have been corrupted; but since you only advance a simple assertion I will return your pass by a simple negation.
9. S. Jerome, you say, could not find the Second in Hebrew; and although it is true that it is only as it were a letter which Israel sent to their Jewish brethen who were then out of Judea, and although it is written in the best known and most general language of those times, does it thence follow that it is not worthy to be received? The Egyptians used the Greek language much more than the Hebrew, as Ptolemy clearly showed when he procured the version of the Seventy. This is why this Second book of Machabees, which was like an epistle or commentary sent for the consolation of the Jews who were in Egypt, was written in Greek rather than in Hebrew.
10. It remains for the new preachers to point out those falsehoods of which they accuse these books; which they will in truth never do. But I see them coming, bringing forward the intercession of Saints, prayer for the dead, free-will, the honouring of relics, and similar points, which are expressly confirmed in the Books of Machabees, in Ecclesiasticus, and in other books which they pretend to be apocryphal. For God’s sake take care that your judgment does not deceive you. Why, I pray you, do you call false, things which the whole of antiquity has held as articles of faith? Why do you not rather censure your fancies which will not embrace the doctrine of these books, than censure these books which have been received for so long a time because they do not jump with your humour? Because you will not believe what the books teach, you condemn it; why do you not rather condemn your presumption which is incredulous to their teaching?
Here now, I think, are all your reasons scattered to the winds, and you can bring no more. But we may well say: if it be thus lawful indifferently to reject or make doubtful the authority of those Scriptures, about which there was formerly a doubt, though the Church has now decided, it will be necessary to reject or to doubt of a great part of the Old and the New Testament. It is then no little gain to the enemy of Christianity, to have at one stroke scratched out of the Holy Scripture so many noble parts. Let us proceed.
The proper performance of the rite produces a result that is independent either of the worthiness of the priest or of the faith of the child.[1127-1128,1239].
It's a magical concept that is expressed in the ritual itself.
The priest INVOKES GOD to EMPOWER THE WATER, saying, "By the POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT GIVE TO THE WATER of this font THE GRACE OF YOUR SON." [1217-1218,1238].
It is magical water, empowered by the Holy Spirit by invocation of God the Father. And believed by Catholics the world over. I don't know which is worse: the deceivers or the deceived.
A rather long quote, which says, in essence, “Now that the Roman Catholic Church says it is all scripture, it is.”
But for 1500 years, it was not so. It was Trent that put them into the canon, and rejected Jerome - and most of the learned Catholics of the time. It was a reaction to Luther, rather than a statement of what had always been.
Your basis for saying something is scripture is:
The Roman Catholic Church has said so.
If that is your reasoning, feel free to use it when you stand before God. All men will stand before God as individuals, and give account.
But you might as well call the Book of Mormon scripture, since the LDS Church says it is so.
“Truth is not a matter of “oh, well, let’s each follow our own way”; you don’t evangelize with “have it your way” as a message, do you? Then what do you consider the truth, and how do you know it?”
I offer the Gospel, but only the Holy Spirit can convict a man’s soul, and even then not if the man refuses. I do not attempt to prove God mathematically. Nor do I attempt to prove something is or is not scripture. If someone rejects the Bible, that is their choice. If they read the Gospels and say, “So what?”, then my words will not convince them.
And it is certain that saying, “The Roman Catholic Church says so” will not help, unless the person is already a Roman Catholic.
“No, not usually... but they also didn’t wait to use the true apocryphal books (the Gospel of Thomas, etc.), either. Do you see the problem, there? In addition, some legitimate books (2 Peter, Revelation, etc.) were rejected in one area, while accepted in another; that would make things rather awkward, yes?”
Nope. Fallible man will make fallible decisions, but as more and more Christians read it, more and more will be convicted by the Holy Spirit. And the problem is hardly as large as you make it out to be. The Gospel of Thomas had very few proponents. In fact, who considers it scripture? What canon list did it appear on?
The problem mainly lay in lack of acceptance, rather than accepting something false. And that lack of acceptance was often caused by a lack of familiarity.
But given that the Catholic Church didn’t speak ‘authoritatively’ until the mid-1500s, it is kind of hard to argue that the Catholic Church ‘gave us the NT’.
On the contrary, it worked rather hard from about 1200-1800 to PREVENT it.
BTW - since you say “That came only when the matter was submitted to the Church, Who spoke authoritatively and infallibly on the matter, settling all reasonable doubt.”
What of the 3 books found in the Vulgate that didn’t make the Council of Trent’s list? Were they scripture before, but not later? If they were before, then what changed? If they were not, then why were they in the Vulgate for 1000 years, and no Pope noticed?
“In 1592, Pope Clement VIII published his revised edition of the Vulgate, referred to as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. He moved three books not found in the canon of the Council of Trent from the Old Testament into an appendix “lest they utterly perish” (ne prorsus interirent).[15]
Prayer of Manasses
3 Esdras (1 Esdras in the King James Bible)
4 Esdras (2 Esdras in the King James Bible)
The protocanonical and deuterocanonical books he placed in their traditional positions in the Old Testament.”
These books were not used in liturgy but you can find quotes throughout Church history by church fathers,Church doctors etc.. quoting them as inspired Scripture.
Even Saint Jerome did this!
This is one of these topics that has been debated at nausea on FR and I have no desire to continue to beat a dead horse
Matt1618 website did a great job showing how Saint Jerome used the deuts
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html#St.%20Jerome,%20[347-419/420%20A.D]
St. Jerome quoted from these books as Scripture, and held them at the same level of inspiration as other Scriptures. If one goes to the index of Quotations from Schaff, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, volume 6 (which does not contain all of St. Jerome's writings), you will see that he refers to and quotes from the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture. In my perusal of the index, I found him quoting/referring to passages in the Deuterocanonicals approximately 55 times: Here is a sampling of his quotes:
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:207St. 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.
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.
"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:159Notice 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:45Notice 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, as the Protestant Schaff editor indicates. Thus, Baruch is clearly Scripture, and he is clearly an author of the Sacred Volume, the Bible.
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:390As 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."St. Jerome himself had written that the Deuterocanonicals are not used to establish doctrine. However, with the larger context given, on this occasion speaking of how we are made in God's image, a doctrine, he specifically uses the Book of Wisdom to establish that. St. Jerome doesn't make any distinctions between the other Scriptural books that he uses to speak on doctrine. The Book of Wisdom is one of Seven Scriptural proofs to establish the meaning of the image of God.7. Instead of THE THREE PROOFS FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"--- Jerome, Letter 51, 6, 7, NPNF2, VI:87-8
A. "Your argument is ingenious, but you do not see THAT IT GOES AGAINST HOLY SCRIPTURE, which declares that even ignorance is not without sin. Hence it was that Job offered sacrifices for his sons, test, perchance, they had unwittingly sinned in thought. And if, when one is cutting wood, the axe-head flies from the handle and kills a man, the owner is[Num. 35:8] commanded to go to one of the cities of refuge and stay there until the high priest dies; that is to say, until he is redeemed by the Saviour's blood, either in the baptistery, or in penitence which is a copy of the grace of baptism, through the ineffable mercy of the Saviour, who[Ezek. 18:23] would not have any one perish, nor delights in the death of sinners, but would rather that they should be converted and live. C. It is surely strange justice to hold me guilty of a sin of error of which my conscience does not accuse itself. I am not aware that I have sinned, and am I to pay the penalty for an offence of which I am ignorant? What more can I do, if I sin voluntarily?Notice at the beginning of his statement he speaks how he is going to prove his point by using Holy Scripture. Then he gives a series of Scriptures to prove the folly of his opponent. Part of those Scriptures that he uses to prove his point is the book of Sirach. The books of Wisdom and Sirach, according to Jerome, explain the plan and purpose of God, which refutes his opponents doctrine. Actually, although he says it is from Wisdom the quotation is actually from Sirach 3:21. Thus, both books are Scripture in Jerome’s eyes. They are quoted by Jerome to prove doctrine!. He says that maybe his opponent will deny the authority of the book, but not St. Jerome. He thus affirms its authority. The rest of the paragraph he actually quotes other Scriptures to support his quotation of Sirach.A. DO YOU EXPECT ME TO EXPLAIN THE PURPOSES AND PLANS OF GOD? THE BOOK OF WISDOM GIVES AN ANSWER TO YOUR FOOLISH QUESTION: [Sir 3:21] "LOOK NOT INTO THINGS ABOVE THEE, AND SEARCH NOT THINGS TOO MIGHTY FOR THEE." AND ELSEWHERE,[5] "Make not thyself overwise, and argue not more than is fitting." And in the same place, "In wisdom and simplicity of heart seek God." You will perhaps deny the authority of this book;" "Jerome, "Against the Pelagians, NPNF2, VI:464-5"
"And in the proverbs Solomon tells us that as "the north wind driveth away rain, so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.(Prov. 25:23)" It sometimes happens that an arrow when it is aimed at a hard object rebounds upon the bowman, wounding the would-bewounder, and thus, the words are fulfilled, "they were turned aside like a deceitful bow," (Psalm 128:57) and in another passage: "whoso casteth a stone on high casteth it on his own head." (Sir. 27:25) Jerome, To Rusticus, Epistle 125, 19 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:251Jerome interchangeably quotes the Proverbs as fulfilling other Scriptures. He says the 'words are fulfilled.' What are the Words that are fulfilled? Then he quotes two Scriptures. First, he quotes the Psalm. Then he quotes Sirach. Proverbs is thus a fulfillment of Sirach. If Sirach was of inferior status it would make no sense for Jerome to phrase it that way. He uses the term, 'another passage’ in reference to Sirach thus making an equivalent level of authority the book of Sirach as to the Psalms.
The above books are clear, explicit references to undoubtedly what Jerome considers Scripture, and clearly shows the Deuterocanonicals as Scripture. Now there are other references to Scripture, where he doesn’t explicitly say, ‘It is written’ or ‘Scripture says’ or ‘the Prophet says’, where he undoubtedly defines these books as Scripture as he does above. In most of the treatment of passages, whether it is Exodus, Numbers, or Sirach, he just gives the quote without explicitly saying that it is Scripture, just as I mentioned earlier with other Fathers. He assumes these passages are Scripture without necessarily saying ‘This is Scripture’, or "It is Written", or "The Prophet says" as the above passages indicate. Now below are some passages from other Deuterocanonical books where he treats them just as he treats other canonical Scriptures, without saying ‘This is Scripture." In fact most of the times the Fathers quote Scripture, they just quote the Scripture to support their view, without making that identifiable mark. Thus, the below passages show that he treats these books in practice as he does non-Deuterocanonical books, thus giving them equivalent status and identifying them as Scripture, though in a less explicit way.
9. Let me call to my aid the example of the three children, (Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in Daniel 3) who, amid the cool, encircling fire, sang hymns, (Song of Three Holy Children, found only in Deuterocanonical portion of Daniel 3) instead of weeping, and around whose turbans and holy hair the flames played harmlessly. Let me recall, too, the story of the blessed Daniel, in whose presence, though he was their natural prey, the lions crouched, with fawning tails and frightened mouths.(Daniel 6) Let Susannah also rise in the nobility of her faith before the thoughts of all; who, after she had been condemned by an unjust sentence, was saved through a youth inspired by the Holy Ghost (Susanna 45, or Daniel 13:45). In both cases the Lord's mercy was alike shewn; for while Susannah was set free by the judge, so as not to die by the sword, this woman, though condemned by the judge, was acquitted by the sword. Jerome, Letter 1:9, NPNF2, VI:2, 370 AD
6. I salute your mother and mine with the respect which, as you know, I feel towards her. Associated with you as she is in a holy life, she has the start of you, her holy children, in that she is your mother. Her womb may thus be truly called golden. With her I salute your sisters, who ought all to be welcomed wherever they go, for they have triumphed over their sex and the world, and await the Bridegroom's coming, (Mt. 25:4) their lamps replenished with oil. O happy the house which is a home of a widowed Anna, of virgins that are prophetesses, and of twin Samuels bred in the Temple! (Luke 2:36, Acts 21:9, 1 Sam. 2:18) Fortunate the roof which shelters the martyr-mother of the Maccabees, with her sons around her, each and all wearing the martyr's crown! (2 Macc. 7) For although you confess Christ every day by keeping His commandments, yet to this private glory you have added the public one of an open confession; for it was through you that the poison of the Arian heresy was formerly banished from your city. Jerome, to Chromatius, Jovinus, and Eusebius, Letter 7:6, NPNF2, 374 AD, VI:10
But now that a virgin has conceived (Isa. 7:14) in the womb and has borne to us a child of which the prophet says that "Government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called the mighty God, the everlasting Father," (Isa. 9:6) now the chain of the curse is broken. Death came through Eve, but life has come through Mary. And thus the gift of virginity has been bestowed most richly upon women, seeing that it has had its beginning from a woman. As soon as the Son of God set foot upon the earth, He formed for Himself a new household there; that, as He was adored by angels in heaven, angels might serve Him also on earth. Then chaste Judith once more cut off the head of Holofernes (Jud. 13).Then Haman--whose name means iniquity--was once more burned in fire of his own kindling (Est. 7:10) Then James and John forsook father and net and ship and followed the Saviour: neither kinship nor the world's ties, nor the care of their home could hold them back. Then were the words heard: "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34) For no soldier goes with a wife to battle. Even when a disciple would have buried his father, the Lord forbade him, and said: "Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay His head." (Mt. 8:20-22) So you must not complain if you have but scanty house-room. In the same strain, the apostle writes: "He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married careth for the things of the world how she may please her husband." (1 Cor. 7:34-36). Jerome, to Eustochium, Letter 22:21, 384 AD, NPNF2, VI:30
For it is not ecclesiastical rank that makes a man a Christian. The centurion Cornelius was still a heathen when he was cleansed by the gift of the Holy Spirit. Daniel was but a child when he judged the elders.( Dan. 13:55-63, or Susanna 55-63) Amos was stripping mulberry bushes when, in a moment, he was made a prophet (Amos 7:14) David was only a shepherd when he was chosen to be king.(2 Sam. 16:11-13) And the least of His disciples was the one whom Jesus loved the most. My brother, sit down in the lower room, that when one less honorable comes you may be bidden to go up higher (Luke 14:10). Jerome, to Heliodorus, Letter 14:9, 374 AD, NPNF2, VI:17.
These things, dearest daughter in Christ, I impress upon you and frequently repeat, that you may forget those things which are behind and reach forth unto those things which are before (Phil. 3:12). You have widows like yourself worthy to be your models, Judith renowned in Hebrew story (Jud. 13) and Anna the daughter of Phanuel (Lk 2) famous in the gospel. Both these lived day and night in the temple and preserved the treasure of their chastity by prayer and by fasting. One was a type of the Church which cuts off the head of the devil (Jud. 13:8) and the other first received in her arms the Saviour of the world and had revealed to her the holy mysteries which were to come (Lk 2:36-38). Jerome, to Salvina, Letter 79:10, 400 AD, NPNF2, VI:168.In sum, Jerome calls the Deuterocanonicals Scripture. The proofs he gives for doctrine come from the Deuterocanonicals. He calls Baruch a prophet in the same sense as Ezekiel. He quotes from Wisdom & Sirach and gives it the same authority as other Scripture and he complains about his opponent denying the authority of the book, not him. His references to the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, including Susannah and Bel and the Dragon, he uses in support of doctrine, clearly seeing them as Scriptures. Jerome mixes them right along with the rest of Scriptures and he treats them just as the rest of Scriptures. Scriptures are used to 'fulfill' Sirach on the same terms that it fulfilled a Psalm, which can thus only be speaking of Scripture. I have shown Jerome quoting and referring to each of the Deuterocanonical books. This includes Sirach, Wisdom, 2nd Maccabbees, Tobit, Esther, Baruch, and even the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel, including Susannah, Bel and the Dragon and the Song of the Three Children, treating each of these books as the same authority as the other books. Thus, the greatest supposed 'detractor' of the Deuterocanonicals, treats the books as Scripture.
The burden of proof is on you ...
There is NO church father evidence that ANY Christians believed in baptismal regeration until late 2nd century.
A repeat of my post on the other thread ... which you ignored.
--------------------
In time order ... who were the church fathers and their writings that occupied the church prior to 100 AD, the first century?
Answer:
1. Clement Episptle to the Corinthians
2. Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus
3. Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
4. Writings of Ignatius
As a Catholic, you may be totally shocked that the first three ... the earliest disciples of the apostles! ... DO NOT MENTION BAPTISM AT ALL !!
None, zero, nada ... no mention at all.
The forth father, Ignatius, who wrote many letters, and whom many letters were forged in his name ... out of the 20+ letters with his name ... He mentions baptism a few times, almost always merely quoting Eph. 4.5, but saying NOT ONE SINGLE THING about mode or about infant baptism ... nor is the concept of baptismal regeneration even hinted at.
I have personally searched through each of these writings myself and agree with the conclusion provided by BeVier:
It is most significant that in all the extant writings of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp—the three outstanding subapostolic fathers—there is no mention whatsoever to water baptism in any form. This is not to say that they did not believe in or practice water baptism, but it is indicative that they did not lay the great stress on the ordinance that was present in the later fathers. This is clear evidence that these who were taught by the apostles themselves put no emphasis on any particular mode, but they did at the same time stress many other doctrines in their epistles. We undoubtedly should learn much from these early pupils of Peter, Paul and John and at the same time save ourselves and those about us a lot of time, effort, and ill feeling wasted on that which is not vital.
From: William A. BeVier, "Water Baptism in the Ancient Church, Part I," Bibliotheca Sacra 116: 462 (1959): 136-144.
Recall that by AD 95, the writing of the Revelation to John, Jesus Christ rebuked all but one of the seven churches! By 100 AD the church had already "lost its first love" ...
This romanticism that the RCC has with the early fathers has led to all manner of errors ...
I pray that the eyes of your understanding would be opened ...
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.