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."
His actions reminded me of what Mormons do.
The Catholic doctrine, put in Lutheran terms, would be sola gratis: grace alone. However, from that gratis necessarily flows love (’caritas’), and from love, both faith and works. No-one can have faith, if that faith is not given to him by God; no-one can do works if those works are not given to him by God.
The Blood of Christ atones perfectly and completely, but Christians are called to carry his cross, to share in his death and resurrection. If we are to be like Him, we must participate in His love.
When I was a child, my mother used to have me roll out the cookie dough, and I would proudly “make the cookies.” She prepared the dough, she baked them, she oversaw everything I did; truly I could do nothing of the task without her. I participated in making the cookies not because she needed me, but because it was a blessing for me that I participate. It didn’t make me feel like I needed her less; it taught me to appreciate in a tiny, incomplete way what she did for love for me, even if I could not grasp the entirety of what she had done.
So, can God restore people to sanctity, leading them from purgatory to Heaven without works done in their name? Of course. BUt he has chosen that we should learn a bit of what His mercy means by requiring mercy of us.
You say that there would be .0000000001% works. Nonsense. Look through the entire gospels: they are filled with works! Feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick, rebuke the sinner, give alms, fast, pray, proclaim the gospel! Does God need us to feed the poor? No, he can rain mannah from heaven. Does he need us to clothe the naken? To heal the sick? To rebuke the sinner? To give alms? To fast? To pray? To preach? No, no, no, no, no, no, no!
God is a god of Love. And he is teaching us how to love. Does that love stop when a loved one dies? No. The victors of Maccabees were sick at heart for their fallen, idolatrous comrades. So God inspired them to act with love, even beyond death. And in doing so, his resurrection and conquering of death was foretold.
Would Thomas Jefferson be lumped with the theological left? Absolutely. Would George Washington? Absolutely not.
“Your “dsc” handle goes back to 1998. What was your other handle?”
I don’t propose to say.
“Sir your post #103 would lump the founders in your definition of the theological left and agents of Satan.”
Not even remotely.
“Shouldn’t be too hard to figure out.”
That’s another thing theological leftists share with garden-variety leftards: a willingness to compromise others’ anonymity.
“You’re free to leave any time you like.”
And the management are free to start acting right any time they’d like.
I have been told that the religion moderators engage in these spats under their poster names. (Talk about conflict of interest.) Would you be one of those?
Your post #127, above:
"That’s another thing theological leftists share with garden-variety leftards: a willingness to compromise others’ anonymity."
“Your post #127, above: “That’s another thing theological leftists share with garden-variety leftards: a willingness to compromise others’ anonymity.”
Please—PLEASE—start thinking for just a second before posting to see if you have a point.
I didn’t propose to compromise your anonymity, nor did I make any threats like, “It shouldn’t be hard to find out.”
I just asked a question.
Amen!
Why is purgatory needed since we both agree The Blood of Christ atones pefectly?
Here’s how it looks to me.First of all, making up the figure "a couple of thousand posts" pretty much shows how out of the loop that statement is.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
Secondly, in the scenario you postulate, usually the other poster will post writings from the belief system of the one being responded to to prove the point.
The next little exercise in total exaggeration is just as ludicrous.
The same type of argument is mindful of Mormon threads.
The constant repetition of the same misinformation, just as though no previous discussions had occurred, just makes my **** tired.Ignore that and respond to those that post text to prove their point.
I used stars (****) for the potty language in your post in case the mods delete it from the Religion Forum as it is against the rules. (no I'm not going to hit the abuse button, I'd rather see the post stay as it is so revealing)
Speaking of mods:
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.If you are going to make totally false statements about the modding on this site, you should ping the Religion Moderator or at least the Admin Moderator.Since the site is privately operated, the management are free to do that. I just wish they’d admit it.
It's kinda sneaky and backstabbing to spout a totally subjective and incorrect pronouncement without pinging those you are accusing.
A very good question.
If you were to (God, forbid) kill your wife, would you suddenly not miss her the moment you repented of it? If a man is dying of AIDS, and he comes to Christ, is he necessarily healed of his disease?
Regret, loneliness, sickness, pain: These are examples of the temporal consequences of sin. If you repent of your sins and follow Christ, your soul is atoned for, and you avoid the eternal consequences of sin, which is Hell. But you still suffer temporal consequences of sin.
Blood atonement is for eternal consequences of sin. Purgation, whether in this life or the next, is one of the temporal consequences. It is NOT a punishment (as it is all-too often understood to be, including by so many Catholics)! And it is only for people who continue to sin again and again in spite of their salvation. It is not a punishment, but a preparation; the restoration of a soul to perfection to enter Heaven.
Is you soul already in perfection? Do you not still sin? Are you not still venial? (I know I am.)
I agree. Our sins are forgiven and forgotten by Our Lord and Savior, however we do "suffer" the consequences of our actions. The gentlemen I pinged with you is a local Prison Ministry leader. Some do come to the Lord and repent and put on Christ in prison but that does not commute or abolish their sentence on earth, but in the World to Come. So I agree with you.
I disagree that we suffer a temporal "cleansing" in purgatory. St. Paul tells us the same God who calls us, justifies us and glorifies us. The Glorification is the putting away of the corruptable for the incorruptable. Specifically our earthly sinful "members" bodies for the Glorified Resurrected body Christ will give us.
I am no Pope or theologian, but I do believe their was a reason Jesus Christ washed the disciples feet in the Upper Room:
John 13:
5 Then He *poured water into the basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel with which He was girded. 6 So He *came to Simon Peter. He *said to Him, “Lord, do You wash my feet?” 7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I do you do not realize now, but you will understand hereafter.” 8 Peter *said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part with Me.” 9 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.” 10 Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, “Not all of you are clean.”
Jesus states that Peter (as well as all the other disciples with the exception of Judas the betrayer) is clean and needs only for Christ to wash his feet. We are washed clean in the Blood of Christ at the Cavalry 'bath house.' On our way home through the dirty sinful world we live in but not a part of our feet get dusty. Our feet need to be cleaned. As demonstrated here, Jesus is still doing the cleaning by His hands which are now forever pierced for us.
“First of all, making up the figure “a couple of thousand posts” pretty much shows how out of the loop that statement is.”
Oh, good grief. Ordinary people use hyperbole in ordinary speech. Get a grip.
“Secondly, in the scenario you postulate, usually the other poster will post writings from the belief system of the one being responded to to prove the point.”
If so, they are writings that have been dealt with a million times before.
“I used stars (****) for the potty language in your post in case the mods delete it from the Religion Forum as it is against the rules.”
Really? You’re going to nag me for using the word “butt?”
“If you are going to make totally false statements about the modding on this site”
If I were going to make false statements, I might ping the moderators.
“It’s kinda sneaky and backstabbing to spout a totally subjective and incorrect pronouncement without pinging those you are accusing.”
Road apples, Mrs. Grundy, road apples. The mods and I have had this discussion at least three times down the years. I posted nothing I haven’t posted to them directly.
And it’s all completely true.
But good job of turning the discussion away from the issues and focusing it on the personal.
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. 4 Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 8 Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part; 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away. 11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. 13 But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
Oh don't hold back, isn't it about a million times?
So the mods have denied your accusations and you still make them?
Myopic and subjective false accusations.
I suggest you see both sides instead of making it look like protestants are meanies and your group is squeaky clean. Absurd.
If so, they are writings that have been dealt with a million times before.
LOL and apparently you still don't get it...
Peter would later deny Jesus three times. He was clean in one sense: he was saved, unlike Judas. But he still harbored fear, pride and doubt: he would once again commit grave sin (denying Jesus), be restored (John 21), and once again commit venial sin for which he was rebuked by Paul (allowing Judaizers) (Yes, this was a venial sin, not heresy; he did not proclaim false doctrine, he only failed to oppose it properly).
Truth, or hyperbole?
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.