Why Scripture and the Facts of History Compel Me to Remain a Committed Evangelical Protestant

I’ve read with interest Francis (Frank) Beckwith’s book, Return to Rome, because like him, I was baptized and raised Roman Catholic, attending parochial schools through my primary grades and a preparatory school run by a Benedictine monastery throughout my high school years. And, like Dr. Beckwith, in my teens I turned away from the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity altogether but was converted in my early twenties and began attending a Protestant Evangelical church. And for the past thirty seven years I have been a committed Evangelical Protestant. I was also quite interested in reading Dr. Beckwith’s book because he had been President of the Evangelical Theological Society at the time of his decision to revert to the Church of Rome and I was intrigued to learn the reasons that had formed his decision. After reading his book it became clear to me that Beckwith’s decision to return to Rome was based on his conviction that the Protestant Evangelical church is deficient on two important points. He is convinced that the Roman Catholic Church can claim historical validation for being the one true church established by Christ and that the Evangelical church is therefore a schismatic movement. He believes the Roman Church is the ultimate authority established by Jesus and that her teachings are therefore authoritative. He says:

Unless I capriciously cherry-picked the Catholic tradition, I could not justifiably accept the Early Church’s recognition and fixation of the canon of scripture—and its correct determination and promulgation of the central doctrines of God and Christ (at Nicea and Chalcedon)—while rejecting the Church’s sacramental life as awell as its findings about its own apostolic nature and authority. I was boxed into a corner, with the only exit being a door to a confessional. At this point, I thought, if I reject the Catholic Church, there is good reason for me to believe I am rejecting the Church that Christ himself established. That’s not a risk I was willing to take…It occurred to me that the burden was on me, and not on the Catholic Church, to show why I should remain in the schism with the Church in which my parents baptized me, even as I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.1

And secondly, and more importantly, he believes the Protestant Evangelical faith is deficient biblically with respect to its overall teaching on the gospel, justification and salvation. It is the subject of justification and salvation that Beckwith devotes most of his attention to in his book. He says:

…it is the Reformation notion of imputed righteousness that, ironically, puts the Reformers partially in the Pelagian camp. This is because the Reformers and Pelagians agree that God’s infused grace is not necessary for justification…For me, all things considered, the Catholic view has more explanatory power than the Protestant view. This is why it made sense to me that the Early Church Fathers…were so Catholic in their teachings. They held to a view that, I believe, does the best job of accounting for all the New Testament’s passages on justification and sanctification.2

And so, being convinced that the distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas can be historically validated and that Rome’s salvation teachings are fully consistent with Scripture, Beckwith has issued a challenge to Evangelicals to give serious consideration to the claims of Rome and reconsider their commitment to their Protestant faith and the legitimacy of the Reformation and to follow him into the embrace of Roman Catholicism:

Thus, there is a heavy burden on the part of Reformed writers to show that the ascendancy in the sixteenth century of a Reformation thinking that had no ecclesiastical predecessors may be attributed to a return to the true understanding of Christianity.3

Dr. Beckwith quotes approvingly from Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, from his review of Noll and Nystrom’s book, Is the Reformation Over? Frank personally italicizes his comments for emphasis, as a clear challenge to Evangelicals:

When I finished reading the book, I have to confess that I agreed with the authors, in that it does indeed seem that the Reformation is over for large tracts of evangelicalism; yet the authors themselves do not draw the obvious conclusion from their own arguments. Every year I tell my Reformation history class that Roman Catholicism is, at least in the West, the default position. Rome has a better claim to historical continuity and institutional unity than any Protestant denomination, let alone the strange hybrid that is evangelicalism; in the light of these facts, therefore, we need good, solid reasons for not being Catholic; not being a Catholic should, in others words, be a positive act of will and commitment, something we need to get out of bed determined to do each and every day. It would seem, however, that if Noll and Nystrom are correct, many who call themselves evangelical really lack any good reason for such an act of will; and the obvious conclusion, therefore, should be that they do the decent thing and rejoin the Roman Catholic Church…(emphasis added).4

And then in these comments, by implication, he is challenging evangelicals to consider that they have no legitimate reasons to remain in what he calls “schism” with the Church of Rome:

Professor Trueman’s reasoning would serve as a catalyst for reorienting my sense of whether the Catholic Church or I had the burden in justifying the schism in which I had remained for over thirty years…I could think of no incorrigible reason to remain in the schism.5

Now, I take such a challenge seriously. I have asked myself the same questions that Beckwith himself asked and over the years through the challenge of Roman Catholic apologists such as Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Patrick Madrid and others, I have been motivated to study and research the pertinent doctrinal and historical issues related to Roman Catholicism and the Reformation covering the general subject of authority and salvation. I have sincerely sought to answer the question, Can the teachings and claims of the Roman Catholic Church be validated biblically and historically? Is this Church truly the one true Church established by Jesus Christ? That study has been going on now for more than twenty five years and I remain a committed Evangelical Protestant precisely because of the truth of Scripture and the facts of history. This study has resulted in the writing of several books on the gospel and particular historical issues related to the history of the development of doctrine and the writings of the Church fathers on subjects such as the authority of scripture, the canon, the papacy and the Marian dogmas. In this research I have been able to bring to light much information that had previously been unavailable in the English language in the writings of the church fathers. So I have approached the reading of Return to Rome with great interest indeed. After reading the book, I must say that my overall reaction was one of deep sadness and disappointment. Frank Beckwith is winsome, obviously very bright and seemingly very sincere. But his arguments historically and biblically in support of Rome and which form the basis of his decision to embrace that church are unconvincing. Historically, Beckwith demonstrates a superficial understanding of the church fathers. There are a great many historical facts that he is either ignorant of or has chosen to turn a blind eye to. Ignorance can forgiven to some degree because he himself admits that he had no training and very little exposure to the writings of the church fathers. He says he gave only about three months of study to their writings prior to his decision to revert to Rome. And from the references he gives in his book it would seem that this study was under the direction of Roman Catholic apologists who are well known for proof–texting the writings of the church fathers giving anachronistic meaning to their writings that was foreign to what they actually say. For example, Roman Catholic apologists see the term tradition in the writings of the fathers and immediately import a present day Roman Catholic understanding to the term that the church fathers did not embrace. Or they will read a church father extolling the person and position of the apostle of Peter and immediately jump to the conclusion that such appellations apply to the bishops of Rome in support of the dogma of the papacy when the fathers themselves never make such an association in their writings. This approach applies to numerous examples that Beckwith references in his book such as prayers to the dead, confession and the doctrine of the Real Presence. Beckwith titles the section on historical doctrine, I Hear the Ancient Footsteps, in which he seeks to defend distinctive Roman Catholic teachings historically. I can personally say, that after twenty five years of research, as opposed to three months, that I also hear ancient footsteps and they do not point in the direction of the present day Roman Catholic Church and its dogmatic teachings. The fact of the matter is, Rome has added dogmas to the ancient rule of faith that was supported by the unanimous consent of the fathers and which was grounded in the written Scriptures. Dogmas which can find no warrant either in Scripture or the tradition of the church, and which in some cases completely contradict the ancient tradition of the Church, and which the Roman Catholic Church declares are necessary for salvation. But the most serious problem with Dr. Beckwith’s book and the one that caused me such disappointment is his caricature of the Reformed Evangelical faith in its teachings on salvation and secondly his assertions regarding the official teachings of Roman Catholicism on justification and salvation. He claims to have a thorough understanding of the teaching of the Reformed faith. He says:

To be sure, I was fully aware how Protestant theologians made their case, and I was capable of following their reasoning. But I no longer found their case convincing.6

Throughout his book Beckwith makes confident assertions about the salvation teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and he is convinced that these teachings are much more consistent, as was pointed out above, with Scripture than those of the Protestant Evangelical and Reformed faith. As a Reformed Evangelical and former Roman Catholic I have thoroughly read and studied all the official Roman Catholic documents on salvation including the Council of Trent, Vatican One, Vatican Two, The Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as papal decrees and official catechisms and the writings of Ludwig Ott. Having read Beckwith’s book, I am appalled at the blatant misrepresentation of both the Reformed teaching as well the teaching of Roman Catholicism. His lack of knowledge on historical issues is forgivable, given his ignorance, but to misrepresent and caricature the Reformed faith and to misrepresent the salvation teachings of Rome is simply irresponsible and dishonest. In this presentation I want to deal with a number of historical issues related to doctrine and dogmas that Beckwith alludes to that impinge upon the subject of the authority and the nature of the church and then address in a summary fashion the issues related to the gospel and salvation for that subject will be taken up in much greater detail by others.

The subject of authority is foundational to an understanding of Roman Catholicism and directly impinges on the issues of the gospel and salvation in two ways. Firstly, in that the authority claims of Rome, which involve the teachings on the papacy, scripture and tradition and the canon, have been elevated to the level of dogma by Rome. What this means is that these teachings embody essential doctrines which define the meaning of saving faith. That is, unless a person fully submits to and embraces them he does not possess saving faith and he cannot be justified. Vatican I, for example, states that it is necessary for salvation that men and women not only believe all that is revealed in scripture but also everything which is defined and proposed by the Church as having been divinely revealed. To reject anything taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit justification and eternal life:

Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end.7

Roman Catholic theologian, Ludwig Ott, explains the relationship of Dogmas defined by the Church and faith in these words:

By dogma in the strict sense is understood a truth immediately (formally) revealed by God which has been proposed by the Teaching Authority of the Church to be believed as such...All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God written or handed down and which are proposed for our belief by the Church either in a solemn definition or in its ordinary and universal authoritative teaching. (Vatican I). Two factors or elements may be distinguished in the concept of dogma:

A) An immediate Divine Revelation of the particular Dogma...i.e., the Dogma must be immediately revealed by God either explicitly (explicite) or inclusively (implicite), and therefore be contained in the sources of Revelation (Holy Writ or Tradition) B) The Promulgation of the Dogma by the Teaching Authority of the Church (propositio Ecclesiae). This implies, not merely the promulgation of the Truth, but also the obligation on the part of the Faithful of believing the Truth. This promulgation by the Church may be either in an extraordinary manner through a solemn decision of faith made by the Pope or a General Council (Iudicium solemns) or through the ordinary and general teaching power of the Church (Magisterium ordinarium et universale). The latter may be found easily in the catechisms issued by the Bishops.

Dogma in its strict signification is the object of both Divine Faith (Fides Divina) and Catholic Faith (Fides Catholica); it is the object of the Divine Faith...by reason of its Divine Revelation; it is the object of Catholic Faith...on account of its infallible doctrinal definition by the Church. If a baptised person deliberately denies or doubts a dogma properly so-called, he is guilty of the sin of heresy (Codex Iuris Canonici 1325, Par. 2), and automatically becomes subject to the punishment of excommunication (Codex Iuris Canonici 2314, Par. I). As far as the content of justifying faith is concerned, the so-called fiducial faith does not suffice. What is demanded is theological or dogmatic faith (confessional faith) which consists in the firm acceptance of the Divine truths of Revelation, on the authority of God Revealing...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation (emphasis added).8

This kind of teaching should give great pause to anyone considering conversion to Roman Catholicism. This Church is claiming the authority to bind men’s souls eternally by the promulgation of doctrines such as he Assumption of Mary that have neither scriptural nor traditional support based solely on her own supposed authority. Certainly there are many, many Roman Catholics who though they have never been formally excommunicated are nonetheless informally in that state since they do doubt and even deny certain dogmas and are thereby guilty of heresy. Secondly, the authority claims of Rome impinge on the issues of the gospel and salvation because she claims to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture as the one true church established by Christ and therefore whatever she authoritatively decrees is infallible. Thus, whatever Rome teaches regarding the gospel and salvation is infallible, divine truth.

Ultimate Authority and Historical Claims to Be the One True Church Beckwith states that he is convinced that the Church of Rome is the one true church established by Jesus Christ. This, of course, is the claim of the Roman Church herself. And that claim is set forth by both allusions to and expositions of Scripture and by appeals to historical practice and the writings of the church fathers. The question is, Do the Scriptures, the facts of history and the writings of the church fathers support the Roman Catholic claims for authority in her teachings of papal rule and infallibility and her claims to the one true church? The papal teachings which are foundational for Roman Catholic authority were given dogmatic definition by the First Vatican Council in 1870 where that Council asserted its claims for papal primacy and papal infallibility. This was the first instance of the teaching of papal infallibility being dogmatically defined but the teaching of papal primacy was dogmatized many centuries previous to Vatican I in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull, Unam Sanctam. So with regard to papal primacy and rule Vatican I is simply reaffirming a dogma that had been decreed by the bishop of Rome some five hundred and eighty years previous. Unam Sanctam states:

And this body he called one body, that is, the Church, because of the single bridegroom, the unity of the faith, the sacraments, and the love of the Church. She is that seamless shirt of the Lord which was not rent but was allotted by the casting of lots. Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads—for had she two heads, she would be a monster—that is, Christ and Christ’s vicar, Peter and Peter’s successor. For the Lord said unto Peter, ‘Feed my sheep.’ ‘My,’ he said, speaking generally and not particularly, ‘these and those,’ by which it is to be understood that all the sheep are committed unto him. So, when the Greeks and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ’s sheep, even as the Lord says in John, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’…Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff,—this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.9

Vatican I set forth its teachings on the basis of the exposition of three major passages of Scripture related to the apostle Peter, Matthew 16:18-19, John 21:15-17 and Luke 22:32. It also reconfirmed the teachings of the Council of Trent in the 16th century and the principle defined by Trent of authoritative interpretation and the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. This principle states that the Roman Church alone has the authority to interepret Scripture and that it is illegitimate to interpret Scripture that contradicts what it calls the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. Trent states:

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published.10

Of the three passages of Scripture used to support Roman Catholic ecclesiology, the most important is Matthew 16:16-19:

And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven’

The basic Roman interpretation of this passage is that the rock refers to Peter leading to the conclusion that the Church of Christ is built upon him personally. The keys represent his authority to rule the church and to define truth. And since it says that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church that she will be infallible in what she teaches and proclaims. Additionally, it is stated that in this passage Christ is establishing successors to Peter in the bishops of Rome who were given authority to rule the Church universal until He returns. Vatican One states that very the very beginning of the establishment of the Church this doctrine was understood and believed including Vatican One’s exegesis of the Petrine passages. But neither biblically nor historically in the practice of the church or in the patristic interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 does one find an affirmation of these teachings. Vatican I is in fact guilty of contradicting the very principle it reconfirmed from the Council of Trent of never interpreting Scripture in any way contrary to the ‘unanimous consent of the fathers’. We will examine the biblical arguments and then the historical.

“That’s off subject. I am not concerned with what is said in that vein.

We are discussing the church that Jesus started when He walked the earth.”

So you’re happy to acknowledge that all the various protestant churches and their members cannot be part of the Church that Christ built?

“that it is a denomination like Catholicism.”

If there is only one Church then it’s not a denomination then is it?

You agree that there’s only one Church. Christ states that “the gates of hell will not prevail against his church”. He then proceeds to appoint the disciples with Peter as the head of his church.

This is biblical.

Now, the Catholic church claims that there is historical continuity - in that the leaders of the Catholic church now can trace the history of the Church back to St. Peter. This is called apostolic succession.

If we know that Christ appointed the Apostles ,and the Apostles appointed their replacements, this makes sense. It’s a chain from Peter to now Pope Francis.

“Who is we?”

The Catholic church. Lumen Gentium states this quite clearly.

You should quote Unam Sanctum rather than simply cut and paste quotes without attribution.

“Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD”

Oh, now that’s interesting. Where are you getting this from? I’d like to see your source.

“That’s based on the Decretum Gelasianum”

Then why do the Vulgate manuscripts such as Codex Amitianus contain the same list of books as Trent? Is this a coincidence?

No, it’s not. It’s concrete evidence that the Canon was in fact exactly what we say that it was.

Now, I suggest you actually try refuting the evidence presented rather than evidence you would prefer. Again - wikipedia is not a reliable source on these matters either.

The booklist of Codex Amitianus is not difficult to find either. Since I’m sure you’d rather fact check it yourself rather than relying upon my citation - have a look see.

“The apocrypha was not settled”

Then why do the Vulgates of the time after Jerome and prior to Luther and Trent contain the same lists of books? Again - this is concrete evidence that asserts that the canon of the Catholic church was set.

“therefore differentiated from the regular scripture.”

Were they considered canonical? Yes. That’s the dispute here. You are claiming that you have the authority to remove books from your bible based on your disagreement with the contents of scripture. This is identical to the position of Marcion.

“There are quotes ranging across 2,000 years, not limited to the church Fathers I have quoted”

Wonderful, but this dodges the essential point. Does the opinion of an individual bishop supercede the entire magisterium? No. And that is the point we are trying to tell you.

“If it was such settled dogma for so long, the RCC would never have needed Trent to respond to the Reformation.”

If it were novel dogma, then why does Gutenberg’s bible contain the exact same list as Trent a century afterwards?

“The great problem, of course, is that the Dead Sea scrolls contain many books not included as “inspired scripture” of the Catholic church.”

Ok. So how then can one determine with certainty that the Jews did not consider Tobit, Baruch and Ecclesiasticus as canonical? You lack sufficient information to determine this. I, however, can state that Qumrun proves that these three books in particular were in use by Jews prior to Christ.

“They even contain books which do not refer to the apocrypha as scripture”

That’s going to earn a [[citation needed]].

“The fact that these books are found in Greek, rather than Hebrew, also doesn’t lend support for your cause.”

Only if one already presupposes that canonicity is only found in Hebrew. This is begging the question.

“whether the Jews considered them inspired. In this case, I have to side with Josephus”

And again - there is substantial evidence that while not all Jews considered them canonical that many Jews did. Once again this raises the question, “who has the authority to determine the canon?” The question you cannot answer save with ‘myself’. And thus we have personal canons to support a personable age.

“The Jews only report translating the first four books of Moses into the LXX.”

This is false. One, there are 5 books in the PENTATEUCH.

Two, the Jews report the translation finished by 130 BC in it’s entirety. At the time, the book became the version of the bible for the Jews around the time of Christ.

It wasn’t seriously questioned until after Christ - which is significant evidence in it’s favor. If it were true that it wasn’t a reliable source for the Jews - we would see evidence against it prior to it’s use by the Christian church. This we do not see.

If you’re arguing that Jamnia is sufficient evidence to merit their exclusion - then the harsh reality is that you’re also in favor of removing essential christian testimony from the Old Testament.

“That’s the thing, there was no magisterium they were disagreeing”

Which is why there was no magisterium in the Councils of Ephesus, Nicaea, Chalcedon and First Constantinople. False.

There were between 500 to 600 bishops who attended at Chalcedon.

“there was a wide variety of views on the apocrypha”

Not really. You’ve got, Jerome? On your side? So it’s 1 vs around a thousand, and Jerome is not even a bishop.

“Haven’t we been over this a dozen times?”

Answer the question.

“If Trent were novel, why the does Gutenberg’s bible published a century prior agree with Trent? Clearly, it’s not novel, and the canon was not established, simply reaffirmed at Trent.

“Jerome and many others disagree vehemently.”

Jerome, apparently is infalliable.

“Now, I suggest you actually try refuting the evidence presented rather than evidence you would prefer.”

You haven’t provided anything that disputes what I have put forward.

“The booklist of Codex Amitianus is not difficult to find either.”

It’s missing Baruch, which you say is part of the canon. The copies of the Vulgate circa 1,500 had Baruch, and still separated the apocrypha from the rest of the canon as not inspired writings. Such was the opinion of the Latin Church for most of the middle ages, due to the scholarship of Jerome and many others, until the Reformation.

“Wonderful, but this dodges the essential point. Does the opinion of an individual bishop supercede the entire magisterium?”

Yes, since they WERE the Magisterium. Are you telling me a Pope, teaching theology, is going against the beliefs of his own church? Were Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal Ximenes and all his associates, excommunicated for denying the divine dictate of the RCC? Was Athanasius excommunicated? “Pope” Gregory the First rebuked by this almighty Magisterium, floating in the background? Was Cyril of Jerusalem and Ephiphanius burned at the stake? What about John of Damascus or Nicephorus? Were they condemned by the universal rage of the “thousands” of people who think Nebuchednezzer is King of the Assyrians? I could go on.

I’m sure you’ll find me where and when the “Magisterium” condemned all these people for their heresy.

“Were they considered canonical? Yes. That’s the dispute here.”

So far, the only person I’ve quoted from that considered them canonical was Cajetan, and he said they were not inspired writings and therefore “canonical” only in a certain manner of speaking, as Ecclesiastical works to be brought forward for instruction in piety, but not for church doctrine as the regular Old and New Testament. If that’s how you want to have it, I am perfectly okay with that! You’ll find Protestants in general to be quite pleased with the idea.

“Two, the Jews report the translation finished by 130 BC in it’s entirety.”

What “Jews” were reporting that? No such information exists. Even the tale of the 72 translators is itself a legend, and a legend at that that only covers the Books of Moses.

“You haven’t provided anything that disputes what I have put forward.”

Sure I have. I’ve provided concrete evidence that supports what I’m saying.

“It’s missing Baruch, which you say is part of the canon.”

True, but it has all the rest of them. Are you willing to concede that Baruch is the only book that might not be included in the Canon? Other manuscripts have Baruch as well.

The question of what the Vulgate contains isn’t seriously contested. They, as a whole - contain the list that is identical to the Catholic church teaches today, and, more importantly, do not match the protestant canon. This is evidence that:

1, protestants took books out of the bible that were already there.

2, the canon was settled long before there ever was a single protestant

3, we can assert that there is continuity between the church in the 4th century and the Catholic church today, and that the continuity does not exist between the protestant churches and the church of the 4th century.

This is not difficult to explain either, as all the major Prostestant founders were Catholic. The Catholic church was there first.

“Such was the opinion of the Latin Church”

That they were canonical? Absolutely.

“Yes, since they WERE the Magisterium.”

No! Again, this is not difficult. Consensus does not operate in this way.

“Are you telling me a Pope, teaching theology, is going against the beliefs of his own church?”

Couple things.

1, this concedes that individual bishops cannot speak for the magisterium.

2, the Pope is given primus inter pares - authority to settle the disputes within the magisterium.

“Were Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal Ximenes and all his associates, excommunicated for denying the divine dictate of the RCC?”

For affirming the Catholic Canon? Hardly.

“Was Athanasius excommunicated?”

For expressing an opinion contrary to the majority of the magisterium, over an issue, that, at that point (340 AD) thereabouts, was not settled?

I’m not arguing that prior to the publication of the Vulgate that there was a settled canon. Evidentiary standards in Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus indicates just the opposite that in the early fourth century that there was considerable agreement but the canon was not set.

Also, there is no evidence for the wholly protestant distinction in scripture in either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. Further damage to your theory. In fact, one could go even further and assert that the division proposed by Jerome is the novelty, not the assertion that they were one and the same part of the same canon.

Which is exactly what happened. Jerome’s novelty was rejected, he submitted to the decision of the Church and the Vulgate contained all the biblical books.

” “Pope” Gregory the First rebuked by this almighty Magisterium, floating in the background?”

Is he pope or not? If he’s not a Pope, then I dont’ see why you are citing him as a pertinant authority. He also doesn’t teach that these books are outside the canon either.

Does it bother you that your convenient list of witnesses is irrelevant?

“I’m sure you’ll find me where and when the “Magisterium” condemned all these people for their heresy.”

So your argument here is that the 500, 600 bishops who attended at Chalcedon simply did not exist. That’s a fabulous argument, btw. It also has no merit.

“So far, the only person I’ve quoted from”

And? Are you saying that you’ve quoted from all 500 or 600 bishops? Or just those that happen to conveniently agree with you?

“that considered them canonical was Cajetan”

Oh, this is a admission. Thank you for acknowledging that Cardinal Catejan agrees with the teaching of the Church that these books are canonical.

“You’ll find Protestants in general to be quite pleased with the idea.”

Of course. They love being told that they don’t have to obey scripture.

“What “Jews” were reporting that?”

What Jews were reporting that the rest of it was fake?

“No such information exists. Even the tale of the 72 translators is itself a legend, and a legend at that that only covers the Books of Moses.”

Ahh, so here we go. The LXX is a fake. Glad to have you here. What other innovations to the field of biblical scholarship do you wish to introduce?

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.