Posted on 10/30/2013 2:07:54 PM PDT by dangus
"Therefore, just as the Church also reads the books of Judith, Tobias, and the Maccabees, but does not receive them among the the canonical Scriptures, so also one may read these two scrolls for the strengthening of the people, (but) not for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogmas."
St. Jerome's preface to the Books of Wisdom.
I long ago read where St. Jerome calls anyone who claims he disdains the canon of the Septuagint, "a fool or a slanderer." He says he was merely representing the opinions of the Jews. For me, that always settled the matter of St. Jerome's opinion of the canon of the Septuagint. But one thing always stuck in my craw: given the previous quote, St. Jerome seems to be blustering a little: It does seem quite reasonable to interpret that passage as meaning that St. Jerome doesn't regard them as being sacred scripture.
The passage is not the clear repudiation of their canonicity that it appears to be. In several other places, St. Jerome contradicts this interpretation directly, and we have to interpret the passage in that light:
Several Church Fathers argued against using the "apocrypha" to gain converts among the Jews. So it's also quite reasonable to suppose that St. Jerome merely meant, "don't use these books to convince anyone of the authority the ecclesiastical dogmas, (since they won't believe you). Use them merely to help those who have already converted to grow further in their faith." But still...
Then I got ... once again... into a quarrel in yet another thread about the Catholic church "adding" the apocrypha to the canon and I came across a simple, but powerful discovery:
I had always regarded the Vulgate as a single publication. I hadn't realized it was issued over several years. St. Jerome's preface to the Books of Wisdom was published years before his prefaces to the Books of Judith and Tobit. Read them:
Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!
I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in Chaldean words into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. But it is better to decide to displease the opinions of the Pharisees and to be subject to the commands of bishops. I have persisted as I have been able, and because the language of the Chaldeans is close to Hebrew speech, finding a speaker very skilled in both languages, I took to the work of one day, and whatever he expressed to me in Hebrew words, this, with a summoned scribe, I have set forth in Latin words. I will be paid the price of this work by your prayers, when, by your grace, I will have learned what you request to have been completed by me was worthy.St. Jerome's preface to the Book of Tobit.
But Bishop Cromatius and Bishop Heliodorus are only two people? OK, he calls those Jews who retain the smaller canon, "Pharisees". But apologists might still claim that Jerome's earlier prologue bears greater weight, and that he only is caving to the demands of two bishops, whereas before he was stating the opinion of the Church. But read this still later passage:
Among the Jews, the book of Judith is considered among the apocrypha; the warrant for affirming these disputed texts which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean language, it is counted among the historical books. But since the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was forcibly restrained, I have given a single night's work , translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have hacked away at the excessively error-ridden panoply of the many codices; I conveyed in Latin only what I could find expressed coherently in the Chaldean words. Receive the widow Judith, example of chastity, and with triumphant praise acclaim her with eternal public celebration. For not only for women, but even for men, she has been given as a model by the one who rewards her chastity, who has ascribed to her such virtue that she conquered the unconquered among humanity, and surmounted the insurmountable.St. Jerome's preface to the Book of Judith.
Now, we can understand St. Jerome's anger he expresses when he uses terms like "fool" and "slanderer"! Whatever opinions St. Jerome might have developed on his own, he has submitted his own opinion to that of the Church, which has made its own opinion the subject of an ecumenical council!
It's altogether reasonable to read these prefaces as St. Jerome "evolving" his views, rather than taking greater concern not to be misread. It's reasonable to reconcile prefaces which at least appear contradictory, in the light of a greater historical context. It's NOT reasonable to read his preface to the Books of Wisdom as indicating that the Church did not consider the "apocrypha" to be scripture, but then ignore St. Jerome's assertion that a universal council of the entire Christian world, held to define mandatory and infallible doctrine, contradicted that reading.
This is what just galls me: Every single Protestant discussion of the canon or St. Jerome's opinion of the canon excludes his prefaces to the Book of Judith and to the Book of Tobit. Every one. And this, then, is the hope Catholics have for the salvation of Protestants: that they have had no free choice to follow the true Church which Jesus, himself, founded. They have been led astray by "fools and slanderers," who have concealed the truth from them. Those "Protestants" who knew the truth in the time of Martin Luther were anathematized by the Council of Trent, because there was no way they could possibly believe the assertion that the Church had just added such books to the canon. But today's Protestants adamantly believe this assertion for no-one has told them otherwise. Hence, their ignorance is "invinceable."
“One look at the posters, you will see these articles are all posted by Roman Catholics.”
These articles. Perhaps it would be helpful to define the offense. Bear in mind that theological disagreement and citing of facts are not wrongful.
“Perhaps since I am a “pup” here on FR, the Roman Catholics are in reactionary mode”
It’s been that way since 1998 that I know of. (I had a different user name when I first signed on.)
“and that explains the multiple threads on the same topics.”
Here’s how it looks to me.
A protestant says, “Catholics believe (some proposition).”
A Catholic says, “No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do believe that.”
“No, we don’t believe that.”
The last two lines are repeated for a couple of thousand posts, and generally devolves into:
Protestant: “You Catholics attacked us.”
Catholic: “Show me where.”
Protestant: “Right here, you said we are wrong.”
Catholic: “That’s not an attack.”
Protestant: “Is too.”
Catholic: “Is not.”
Protestant: “Is too.”
Catholic: “Is not.”
Protestant: “Is too.”
Catholic: “Is not.”
Ad nauseum.
“However it is my observation as someone educated through college in the Roman Catholic tradition, that you should elicit the help of a priest to help form some of the Roman Catholic responses.”
I am sure that every Catholic here regrets that he is not more knowledgeable. I certainly do. However, that is not a grievous offense, in my view.
“To date the responses are canned, linked and poorly argued.”
Of course I have canned replies; they are well suited to the canned attacks.
Dude, we’re tired. The constant repetition of the same misinformation, just as though no previous discussions had occurred, just makes my butt tired.
I know that no matter how much work I may put into a reply, one protestant after another will continue to post the false assertion I have just dealt with, just as though I had never rebutted it. It’s a perpetual motion machine.
For instance, there is no longer any excuse for any protestant on FR to think that Catholics worship statues, and yet I know I will see posts to that effect for as long as I read here.
“There is too much emotion (anger at times) in the responses.”
God’s patience is infinite. Mine is not. I am just a man. Malice and stupidity directed my way can sometimes get my goat. However, I have never seen a Catholic post anything that was even a tiny fraction as insulting and abusive as remarks made routinely by Protestants.
The religion forum has had problems since its inception. The first and worst of these is that the moderating is not in any way objective. I don’t think there is any effort to make it objective. The management are protestants, and protestants are favored.
Since the site is privately operated, the management are free to do that. I just wish they’d admit it.
Well thanks for cutting to the chase:) You told me all I need to know. In order to slip works based atonement, praying for the dead and purgatory doctrines you need the Apocryphal as a package. Just grabbing Maccabees would look all too suspect.
If your statement is the Blood of Christ is only good for some sins or depends on the situation, then I see why Rome needs the Apocrypha. Because the same book you keep citing Hebrews has the famous verse: it is appointed unto men to die once and then judgment.
Sir, we obviously disagree but I respect your honesty in stating the Roman doctrine has vague origins. Threadbare is more like it.
I guess we can dispense with the contradiction discussion. Because if we put the Apocrypha on equal footing then this “Bible” then truly would have contradictions. You would have 99.999999% Grace vs 0.0000000001% works atonement, pray for the dead and purgatory. Then again having such a “contradiction” would play into the hands of the tradition and church/pope infallibility argument. So the Pope and Vatican need that question mark on Scriptures.
All too clear now. Thank you for clearing it up.
Again I applaud your honesty.
“Liars, disinformationists, slanderers and propagandists abound on internet forums. Many claiming to be Christians.”
One great thing about FR is IBTZ—in before the zot. When some leftard comes in here spewing poison about like some benzedrine puff adder, he gets tossed—ZOT.
However, that is not true of the religion forum. Theological leftism is tolerated.
When people speak of leftism, they are usually referring to economic leftism (which makes a people poor), political leftism (which enslaves a people), and social leftism (which robs a people of moral standards and artistic discernment).
There is, however, another form of leftism-one that is rarely called by its name. This is theological leftism, and it may be the worst of them all, as it leads one away from God while insisting on its own superiority to “outdated tradition.”
Now, we know that all leftism is of and from Satan. We observe how the proponents of leftism lie constantly, attempt to deceive, coerce those who won’t be deceived, and extol the tolerance of evil-including abortion, divorce, sodomy, promiscuity, and even mass murder. This is true as well of theological leftism. It seeks to foment disobedience to God by appeal to a “more modern,” and therefore superior, “understanding” of the Bible.
When we seek to discern whether a given premise or movement is theologically leftist, then, we can look for several telltale characteristics.
1. Does it claim an understanding of Scripture that is superior to what existed before?
2. Do its proponents rely extensively on falsehood when discussing differences?
3. Do its proponents engage in coercion, either inside or outside their own group?
4. Does it claim that tolerance of evil is morally superior, particularly that which allows the indulgence of the sin of lust (divorce, sodomy, promiscuity, etc)?
5. Above all, does it countenance the slaughter of the most innocent?
There are theological leftists within the Catholic Church, yes, but because its foundations are solid, they have been unable to bring it down. It appears that evil within the Church has reached its high-water mark, and is receding, laus Deo.
One need not look far to find churches that are totally under the sway of the five telltales listed above, and some within them display one more characteristic of theological leftism: blind, irrational hatred of the Catholic Church. When such people attempt to criticize the Church, they do so with all the hatred, illogic, and dishonesty shown by any other sort of leftist.
It is worth noting that one can be a theological leftist while retaining conservative beliefs in the economic and political realms.
What about tendentious and deceptive articles like this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3087952/posts
Amnesty International? Really?
There IS as I stated a difference of the terms. I sat on inquiries for both situations. One NCO badgered an Iraqi Muslim interpreter to the point of trying to baptize him with a bottle of water against his will. That is proselytizing.
One NCO was asked how he “kept it all together” in his life and he preached the Gospel. That was evangelizing.
I think you used the term faux Christians one time before.
Refresh my memory.
I see you are gifted in the Jedi arts of rhetoric. No harm there. I’ll ping you to the next inflammatory “Catholic Answers” thread.
I think the Apocrypha debate has come full circle. The Roman Catholic Church needs the OT era Apocrypha to round out its soteriology. Don’t know why there is all the beating around the bush.
Obviously not you. My apologies.
That would be a news article.
No problem. It is hard to keep track of posts and posters when you are commenting on different threads.
Based on the claims you made a bunch of satanic leftists penned their names to the Declaration of Independence and drafted our Constitution. We should all be on our knees thanking God for such Godly men He blessed us with. Or are you counting the one Roman Catholic who signed the Declaration?
“There IS as I stated a difference of the terms. I sat on inquiries for both situations. One NCO badgered an Iraqi Muslim interpreter to the point of trying to baptize him with a bottle of water against his will. That is proselytizing.”
No, that is harassment.
This is proselytizing:
The Catholic Church contains everything good to be found in protestantism, plus a whole bunch of stuff that Protestants flung out—good stuff that God wants us to have.
Okay, I’m done for now.
By the way, the NCO should have known that forced baptisms are not valid.
He thought if he vouched for the Iraqi it may count later when he came to his senses. Sure does sound familiar.
“Based on the claims you made a bunch of satanic leftists penned their names to the Declaration of Independence and drafted our Constitution.”
How disappointing.
I would submit my remarks to any objective jury in complete confidence that they would find no such implication in anything I wrote.
“We should all be on our knees thanking God for such Godly men He blessed us with.”
I often am.
“Or are you counting the one Roman Catholic who signed the Declaration?”
Is there some reason to include that other than to try and get a rise out of me?
“Sure does sound familiar.”
Oh, come on. Are you really going to start that?
“I see you are gifted in the Jedi arts of rhetoric.”
No, those are arts of seeking the truth.
“I’ll ping you to the next inflammatory “Catholic Answers” thread.”
Okay.
“The Roman Catholic Church needs the OT era Apocrypha to round out its soteriology. Don’t know why there is all the beating around the bush.”
The Catholic Church needs the whole Word of God, as, indeed, do we all.
“That would be a news article.”
How is that different? It didn’t post itself. Nor did it refer to Catholic conduct as “sickening.”
I was offended by that. I wouldn’t ping the moderator to it, though.
You're free to leave any time you like.
It’s been that way since 1998 that I know of. (I had a different user name when I first signed on.)
Your "dsc" handle goes back to 1998. What was your other handle?
Sir your post #103 would lump the founders in your definition of the theological left and agents of Satan.
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.