Replies

More review shows that over half of Sippo’s 120,000+ tome is an attempt to prove that “infallible” is used too strictly by far weightier RC authorities then he, so as to render the canon fixed by Hippo and Carthage, and he invokes the Catholic Encyclopedia (with its stamps) in so doing, but faced with its interpretation of when the canon was finalized (as it states, “The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent”) he responds,

“The New Catholic Encyclopedia is a wonderful compendium, but it has its limitations and it certainly is not a magisterial document. I am under no obligation to agree with its conclusions.”

Of course he also disagrees with others including less an authority than Catholic Church historian and Trent expert Hubert Jedin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubert_Jedin) who stated, “it [Trent’s decree] also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon.” However, Sippo quotes him as an authority elsewhere.

And then he adds “I apologize to Mr. Webster for the confusion caused by the poor use of terminology by Catholic authors,” as he insists that Art Sippo has the the correct interpretation.

In his zeal to see the canon fixed, he even relegates men like Jerome, Italian theologian and cardinal Girolamo Seripando, Cardinal Cajetan (of whom the CE says, “Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly”), as “defectors from Catholic Tradition [who] were simply out of touch with Magisterial teaching?

Well then here is RC apologetics, it exalts its magisterium as providing sure guidance, yet RCs do not even know how many infallible decrees there are, and while they criticize evangelicals for judging truth according to warrant, yet RCs must rely on fallible human reasoning to judge what is magisterial teaching and in interpreting it, and according to relative peons like Sippo, in so doing they can contradict church approved material (which they insist we rely on) and end up disagreeing with each other. (Indeed, some RCAs point to Florence as the first infallible decree, if not Trent).

Regardless, all of Sippo’s prolixity here and what follows (and he does not settle the Esdras debate, though that is not critical here), it provides no real support for the essential RC argument in this debate (and instead affirms the other side), which was that Luther is to be characterized as a villain for relegating books as doubtful (after the ancient manner which Sippo affirms took place) which Trent affirmed as the issue was settled early on, yet regardless of how “fixed” Sippo wants to make that canon, it definitely was not indisputable, and far greater authorities than Sippo excluded books, without official censure (as does Rome from the Orthodox canon, even though that is not entirely fixed). And it remains that the Prot canon has ancient support.

Either admit that or cease trying to obscure this fact.

Considering that despite its volume Sippo still cannot actually deny these things, despite exalting his own ‘ judgment in attempting to do so, i can understand why Webster need not reply.

However, he has others waiting:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=598

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2751

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=557

Etc.

I’m not impressed with your post,it’s just more half truths and spin to me.

Again, Catholicism teaches Christ speaks through Ecumenical Councils or the ordinary teaching “always given in every place”. Thus, the Spirit of God can be found in the “sense of the faithful” that identifies God’s Word when taught. Thus, when the Catholic Church reads deutercanical books throughout history in Liturgy and mentions them in Ecumenical Councils they are believed to be Inspired Scripture.

There was so much error during the period of Trent because of protestant heresies that the Church needed to make concrete statements on what was always believed in order to protect the flock. This has happens in this fashion all throughout History.

So, the argument you’re trying to make is no different than those who try to deny the Divinity of Christ by saying it took until the Council of Nicea in 325 to declare the Divinity of Christ

Of course this is not true because we know by the writings of the Church Fathers,Liturgy,etc.that the catholic Church always believed in the Divinity of Christ and the Church needed to protect the flock from the growing Arian heresy in the same fashion that the Church used the Council of Trent against protestant heresies.

“”And it remains that the Prot canon has ancient support.””

No it does not. Good luck proving that with the scraps and pieces of what we think might be something original.

Time to move on to something else

I wish you blessings in your search for truth!