Posted on 05/10/2013 7:36:49 PM PDT by boatbums
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.
Authority
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.
I never have tried them. Aren’t you tired of the Popios, yet?
Benedict’s was an excellent vintage. It’s a shame his was discontinued.
Personally I find it very encouraging, to see my friends join me. I beat Beckwith by two years. :)
“Sure I have. I’ve provided concrete evidence that supports what I’m saying.”
No, you’ve made various assertions which you call concrete, but to me seem to be grasping for straws.
“This is evidence that:”
It’s evidence that the ancients included the apocrypha as useful for edification as agreed by Jerome, “Pope” Gregory, Athanasius, Cardinal Cajetan, and on and on and on. It’s absolutely irrelevant for what you’re trying to prove.
“Also, there is no evidence for the wholly protestant distinction in scripture in either Sinaiticus or Vaticanus.”
The distinction is by Jerome and others, and the Reformers. The Sinaiticus has the Epistle of Barnabas, which you do not hold is part of the RCC canon of divinely inspired scripture. It’s an instructional epistle. It’s strong evidence that the ancients attached to their collection of writings whatever they thought was useful to read. Since the ancients defined very clearly what was the purpose of the apocrypha, it doesn’t matter how many MSS you put forward, since they (The early ‘Fathers’) all universally acknowledge that they are brought forward for “instruction in piety,” but not to be confused with those which are brought forward for “confirmation of the faith.”
“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 Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus 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.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)
” He also doesn’t teach that these books are outside the canon either.”
Gregory on Maccabees:
“Concerning which thing we do nothing irregularly, if we adduce a testimony from the books, which although not canonical are published for the edification of the people. For Eleazar wounding an elephant in battle, slew him, but fell under him whom he had destroyed.” — Morals, book 19, on 39th chap, of Job.
“So your argument here is that the 500, 600 bishops who attended at Chalcedon simply did not exist.”
No one at Chalcedo endorsed the apocrypha as inspired screature. It’s always amusing to see what you imagine to be my “arguments,” and what you imagine to be “arguments” in reply.
“Oh, this is a admission.”
I guess you admit my position. It’s about time.
“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?”
I forgot to reply to this one in my previous post. This is pretty representative of how silly your arguments are. I didn’t say the LXX is fake. I just told you that it’s a historical fact that no one knows when the apocrypha or even the rest of the Old Testament after the Books of Moses were put together and by whom. In fact, the only copies available today were by non-Jews. There are even various versions of translations of apocrypha in Greek, so there was no set version. Furthermore, many of the LXX’s renderings are problematic when compared to the original Hebrew.
For example, here is Isaiah 9:6 in the LXX:
“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.”
Notice it removes the scriptures which declare that the Messiah is God.
On the contrary, I have a paraphrase by Joseph Ben Uziel before the time of Christ, which does not deny the Hebrew rendering of Isaiah 9:6, and in fact ascribes them all to the Messiah. And his reading was not based on the LXX, yes you propose was an official Jewish version backed by the authorities of that day.
I asked you for evidence, but you punted with “So derrr you think the LXX doesn’t exist? Derrr”
Your position is an irrelevant non sequitur. No truth can be assembled from false premises and your dissection of the Catholic Canon of Scripture presupposes that Sola Scriptura was the purpose for that Canon. It was not. As I am stating now for the third time in this the Canon was established for the sole purpose of identifying those inspired texts suitable for inclusion in the Liturgy of the Word within the Mass. To suggest that non-Catholics would have a voice in the determination of which writings are suitable is preposterous.
Further, the Canon does not serve to identify the sole deposit of faith, nor does it attempt to suggest that within the canon a hierarchy of Scripture does not exist. Quite the opposite. The order of the readings, with the Old Testament, including the Deutercanonicals first, followed by the various letters and at the apex the Gospels is the Tradition that the Canon serves.
How non-Catholics choose to use the product of the Church for secondary purposes is of no matter to me, but they do not have a claim in the validation of that product. Non-Catholic critiques of the Canon are as relevant as a wet dog scratching at the back door complaining about what the people inside choose to watch on TV.
(And, for the record, the first reading today was from Sirach).
Peace be with you
“absolutely irrelevant for what you’re trying to prove.”
Then, again - why don’t we see a protestant canon back then? You keep saying, “this is how it ought to have been”, but we don’t see it. None of the manuscripts we have from this time period have this canon. Not a single one.
Not Codex Vaticanus, not Sinaiticus, Not Amitianus.
If it were true what you are saying we should at least see some manuscripts that reflect your opinion. Instead - we don’t. Not before the publication of the vulgate. In fact the very first one to actually put up a bible like this was Erasmus, more than 1100 years after the first publication of the Vulgate.
That is very, very late. It requires believing that the Church got it wrong and it took 1100 years to believe that they got it right.
Now, I don’t know about you - but that seems a bit much to swallow.
“The distinction is by Jerome and others”
Yet none of the books actually contain this canon. Why is this?
“The Sinaiticus has the Epistle of Barnabas, which you do not hold is part of the RCC canon of divinely inspired scripture.”
True - it doesn’t, however - here’s the point. It also contains books that aren’t in your personal canon. Ergo - you cannot argue that Sinaiticus supports your personal canon. Same with Vaticanus. Same with Amitianus. Same with every single Vulgate manuscript.
NONE of them have the protestant canon. Why is this? If, as you say, this opinion was widespread, why do NONE of them show up as the actual biblical canon?
“It’s strong evidence that the ancients attached to their collection of writings whatever they thought was useful to read.”
So you’re saying these aren’t really bibles because they don’t make your personal canon. Interesting. That’s also Marcion’s argument.
You’re aware of that, aren’t you? I’m still not seeing how your position is any different than Marcion.
“it doesn’t matter how many MSS you put forward”
Yes, it does matter when discussing the formation of the biblical canon. Especially because it demonstrates that your position is false.
“all universally acknowledge”
So you’re willing to admit that there DID exist a magisterium now? And that the Magisterium DID decide that these books were sufficiently valuable so as to be canonical?
“Concerning which thing we do nothing irregularly, if we adduce a testimony from the books, which although not canonical are published for the edification of the people.”
He’s not talking about these books, but other ones. Might be time to start citing the actual source and not your usual misleading snippets. ;)
“No one at Chalcedon endorsed the apocrypha as inspired screature.”
Your argument is that the MAGISTERIUM DID NOT EXIST. There were 500-600 bishops at Chalcedon. This is concrete evidence that the Magisterium did in fact exist.
Now, are you willing to concede this point? Yes or no.
As for Catejan are you conceding that he stated these books ARE canonical?
“Your position is an irrelevant non sequitur.”
Let me define my position, and then I’ll define yours. My position is that the apocrypha throughout history has either been defined as out of the canon, or defined as in the canon, but in BOTH cases distinct from the regular scripture as only useful for instruction in piety, but not to be brought forward as authoritative for the confirmation of doctrine. This is a position born out by a chorus of theologians, Bishops, Popes, and even Latin editions of the Bible as late as the 14th century, which all share this position “reduced to the correction of Jerome.”
YOUR position is timetravel. You want me to believe that at the Council of Trent, nearly 1,500 years after the time of Christ, that the Magisterium had the power to break the space-time continuum and send a decree about what the RCC has decided it has always believed back through the generations (to those who didn’t believe it). The powerful bellow of the Pope, in other words, echoed throughout time and space (even the aliens heard it!) condemning and shaming every wayward “Pope” and Bishop going back 1500 years!
I’m sorry, but science fiction and Catholicism don’t mix!
“(And, for the record, the first reading today was from Sirach).”
That’s alright, it is permitted, as long as you do not put forward Sirach as authoritative in doctrine. Consider it a PSA from the Apostolic succession.
Peace and Blessings
That’s cute, used to avoid discussion with those who use the Holy Spirit as the interpreter of scriptures instead of the “Fathers” of belief system.
The cereal of the Traditions of Catholicism.
Claimed to be equal with the inspired God-breathed Word of God.
That graphic just screams “your are correct, I have no counter to your Biblical claims.”
“I didn’t say the LXX is fake.”
You said:
1, that it was a myth of the 70 putting together the LXX for the pentateuch (after you said there were only 4 books in the pentateuch)
2, you said that it was a myth that the Jews put together the rest of the LXX.
So, put one and two together, you’ve managed to toss the entire LXX in the rubbish bin. Never mind that the absolute oldest biblical manuscripts that we do possess are those of the LXX.
I could turn around and say here’s the deal. The LXX predates everything else we have. It makes sense then, from a biblical standpoint that we would use the LXX as the foundation source for all our biblical translations (as they do in the Eastern church).
“I just told you that it’s a historical fact that no one knows when the apocrypha or even the rest of the Old Testament after the Books of Moses were put together and by whom.”
“It’s a historical fact” [[citation needed]]
We know they were Jews and we know that the book was finished by 150 BC according to the testimony of Jews.
“In fact, the only copies available today were by non-Jews.”
False. There are LXX manuscripts at Qumrun. Arguing that it’s an early Christian forgery is a lie.
“Furthermore, many of the LXX’s renderings are problematic when compared to the original Hebrew.”
What ‘original hebrew’? Oh wait, you mean the ‘masoretic text’.
Are you aware that the Masoretic text dates to the 9th century? Amitianus is older. As are quite a few Vulgate manuscripts older, not to mention, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc, etc, etc.
The masoretic text is not an ancient document. The Septuagint is. Ergo as the Septuagint is older we should go with the text of the Septuagint, not the (much newer) Masoretic Text).
“That is very, very late.”
This line of argument is so utterly irrelevant to me that you might as well be speaking another language.
” Ergo - you cannot argue that Sinaiticus supports your personal canon.”
When did I make that argument? That’s yours, isn’t it, that it supports your list of inspired scripture? I said it supports the view that the ancients attached to their collected writings anything they thought useful to read, perfectly consistent with the opinion of the ancients as I have presented.
“So you’re willing to admit that there DID exist a magisterium now?”
I ignored that silly little comment earlier. You imagined that I said there was no “magisterium” completely, when all I said was that they were not disagreeing with any magisterium, and even said they were the magisterium. You erased my word “with” at the end, and have been going on this tangent now for two posts straight.
“He’s not talking about these books, but other ones. Might be time to start citing the actual source and not your usual misleading snippets. ;)”
He referenced Maccabees, and the quote is cited.
“As for Catejan”
As for Cajetan, I take it you concede that he defined the apocrypha as out of the canon of scriptures per Jerome, but “canonical” only in a certain way of speaking, not as authoritative text, but as Ecclesiastical text for instruction in morals, but not doctrine. This is a distinction I’ve beaten to death for 4 or 5 pages straight, but you still don’t acknowledge it. This distinction is fatal to your position.
“YOUR position is timetravel. You want me to believe that at the Council of Trent, nearly 1,500 years after the time of Christ, that the Magisterium had the power to break the space-time continuum and send a decree about what the RCC has decided it has always believed back through the generations (to those who didn’t believe it).”
LOL!
Our position is this:
The Vulgate, (published around 400 AD) contains the following books:
“The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.
The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).”
Manuscript evidence for this position exists today in the
Amitianus.
If it were time travel, then why is it that a manuscript dated to 750 AD contains all the books and not some of them? Why is it that we see absolutely no manuscripts that reflect your opinion of the canon?
“Consider it a PSA from the Apostolic succession.”
So when can we expect you to submit to an Apostle?
“So, put one and two together, you’ve managed to toss the entire LXX in the rubbish bin. Never mind that the absolute oldest biblical manuscripts that we do possess are those of the LXX.”
Your position is that the LXX proves that the Jews considered the apocrypha canon, despite its mistranslations of the original Hebrew and the position of Josephus. You claimed that the Jews translated the LXX as an official Greek version of their work. My response is that there is no evidence that there was any official Jewish backing for the entire translation, or that there was even one standard edition, since there were various versions of the same works. The only thing we have is the legend of the 72 translators and the Books of Moses, but not for the rest of it. Not that the LXX doesn’t exist at all, which is your usual silliness.
“We know they were Jews and we know that the book was finished by 150 BC according to the testimony of Jews.”
The LXX isn’t just one book. It’s a Greek version of all the books of the Old Testament, and later, eventually, the apocrypha. They were not translated or written all at one time, or even only once. If you have testimony from Jews that the apocrypha was translated by 72 translators going into separate cells and coming out, through divine inspiration, with the same translation independently, you’re more than welcome to provide it, or even anything that supports your assertion. This will be my third time asking you to provide evidence.
“Ergo as the Septuagint is older we should go with the text of the Septuagint,”
That’s like saying a copy that denies important Messianic prophecies is superior to the Hebrew we have inherited. The Old Testament dates back to ancient antiquity, and just because the remaining text, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls isn’t in the best of shape, doesn’t mean there was no Hebrew text at all.
I have already said that what you believe is irrelevant. The Council of Trent was called to address the Reformation and, in the face of anti-Church propaganda reaffirmed what the Council of Rome had affirmed nearly 1200 years earlier.
A lack of understanding on how the Church works on your part does not obligate the Church to act. The Church responds to controversy and challenges, it does not set all doctrine and disciplines a priori. The controversies as to the listing of documents found worthy to be read in the Liturgy of the Word are completely a Protestant fabrication only because they redefined the Bible into something it was not intended to be.
Peace be with you.
“I have already said that what you believe is irrelevant.”
I’m pretty sure I told you the same. I’m not interested in RCC chest beating and repeating the official party line. I’m interested in evidence, not your bland assertions which have already been discredited, or of your opinions about me. Put up or shut up, that is my motto.
“This line of argument is so utterly irrelevant to me”
Well then. Sola Ipsemet is confirmed.
“When did I make that argument?”
So you’re conceding then that Codex Sinaiticus doesn’t support your argument. Thank you.
“You imagined that I said there was no “magisterium” completely”
I imagined no such thing. You said, straight out. The magisterium did not exist. I provided evidence from the Council of Chalcedon indicating that the evidence we do have states attendence of 500 to 600 bishops.
That indicates that there was a substantial magisterium existing as of the 5th century. I could go look up Nicaea, but I suggest that should be sufficient to establish my point.
Now, let’s go back to the point at hand. Did the magisterium of the Church establish the canonicity of the entire Vulgate manuscript per the list further up in the post?
“He referenced Maccabees, and the quote is cited.”
How can I verify that the citation is correct?
“As for Cajetan, I take it you concede that he defined the apocrypha as out of the canon of scriptures per Jerome”
Jerome does not have the authority to determine the canon of Scripture.
“This is a distinction I’ve beaten to death for 4 or 5 pages straight”
Your standard is ‘inspiration’, presumably determined by self alone. Yes, I reject that. My standard is “does the magisterium consider these books sufficient value to remain in the canon?”
Again, I answer the question you’ve never answered - “who has the authority to decide which books are or are not inspired”?
“Your position is that the LXX proves that the Jews considered the apocrypha canon”
My position is that the LXX proves that many Jews in the period from 150 BC to 70 AD considered the previous list of OT books to be their canon.
My position is that this list changed after the destruction of the temple, where the Jews rewrote their own books. We can prove this today as we have evidence of what the books read prior to the destruction of the temple, and it confirms what Ireneus wrote many years ago.
This renders future recensions (including the Masoretic text) suspect where it disagrees with the LXX.
“You claim that the Jews translated the LXX as an official Greek version of their work.”
Absolutely they did. The book was in wide use around the time of Christ.
“My response is that there is no evidence that there was any official Jewish backing for the entire translation”
That the book was widely used and the fact that there are 4 separate versions published in Greek to ‘correct it’, is indications that the LXX, at least in Greek was the official version. That they attempted to rewrite it after is further evidence that they did consider the LXX authoritative.
If they didn’t consider the books authoritative then they would not have bothered to revise them. They would simply have said that the Christians were not using the actual ‘Jewish scriptures’. Which was never their argument.
“The only thing we have is the legend of the 72 translators”
Nonsense. We have textual evidence prior to the time of Christ indicating that the LXX existed then. This, not surprisingly is also the oldest textual evidence of the existence of the bible.
But go ahead. Tear it all down.
“The LXX isn’t just one book. It’s a Greek version of all the books of the Old Testament, and later, eventually, the apocrypha.”
And? The versions circulating at the time of Christ make no distinction. They have all the books, and not some of them. We can prove this now.
“This will be my third time asking you to provide evidence.”
Provide evidence in support of your position that the LXX was not complete by 150 BC. You said this was a ‘historical fact’, yet provided no historical testimony from Jews asserting this fact.
I can only conclude that you’re simply making things up.
As for my position - LXX texts were found in Qumrun.
“That’s like saying a copy that denies important Messianic prophecies is superior to the Hebrew we have inherited.”
That’s what the Masoretic text does, btw. That’s what you’re doing.
“The Old Testament dates back to ancient antiquity, and just because the remaining text, as found in the Dead Sea Scrolls isn’t in the best of shape, doesn’t mean there was no Hebrew text at all.”
I’m not saying that. I’m saying that the texts that we do have show that the Greek texts are older than the extant hebrew texts. I’m not even saying that the Hebrew texts are wrong. I’m saying that the hebrew texts we do have are very much newer than even the Latin versions that we possess, and are thus, unreliable, where they differ from the LXX.
Oh hahahah lol lol lol!
Just because I don't want to discuss anti-Protestant talking points instead would rather stay on subject, that's your "interpertation" of that decision on my part?
Ahhhh,, ok... but I must say that is some supreme class One A mind reading there my friend!
Having recovered from enjoying your sense of humor, here is a response, starting with your whole quote:
Most mainline protestant churches go back about 500 years at most. Most protestant churches don’t even go back that far. If this is in fact true - we would expect to see some continuity between the Church then and the Church now. That we don’t, is evidence that all of these churches are in fact not a part of the church that Jesus founded.
So it appears that is your opinion inspired by my saying " “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.”
I don't base my statements on opinions that I disagree with, but nice try.
Perhaps there is a Protestant bashing thread to take that to?
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.No, that is tradition decided centuries later by certain revered "Fathers."This is biblical.
Around the time it was decided that the universal catholic church started by Jesus is the Roman Catholic Church.
You should quote Unam Sanctum rather than simply cut and paste quotes without attribution.
Who is Unam Sanctum, was he a pope?
“Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD”You just mentioned it: 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.
” but I suggest that should be sufficient to establish my point.”
Your points are so silly and irrelevant to what I have actually written as objections that, somehow, my indifference to them is extreme. Extreme indifference!
“How can I verify that the citation is correct?’
You check the citation, you have a computer with internet connection you can use, unfortunately.
“My standard is “does the magisterium consider these books sufficient value to remain in the canon?””
Your magisterium did not have that position until about the 16th century. Before that, you would have agreed with Jerome if you were in the western church.
“My position is that the LXX proves that many Jews in the period from 150 BC to 70 AD considered the previous list of OT books to be their canon.”
I’ve asked you for evidence for that position. You’ve just hit me with red herrings like “You don’t believe the LXX existed!” and “the LXX is more authoritative than the Hebrew!” I have to side with Josephus on this one.
” I’m saying that the hebrew texts we do have are very much newer than even the Latin versions that we possess, and are thus, unreliable, where they differ from the LXX.”
You’re insane! This is basically undoing huge swathes of what is accepted as the scripture amongst the Jews and us, siding with texts that deny important Messianic prophecies and contain many other errors. Jerome did not base his translation on the LXX. He based it on the Hebrew manuscripts that he had, which is why he rejected the Apocrypha. The Jews had not bothered to protect the various apocrypha works, which, by the way, are greater in number than just the ones the RCC embraces.
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.