Posted on 03/24/2014 10:59:55 AM PDT by JSDude1
Just curious, but I (as a non-Catholic Christian) just want to ask any Catholic friends on here, if you at times personally (or even in a Mass/Church setting) ever use ANY Protestant made media that glorify Jesus (and by extension his apostles and the Old Testament saints)?
Do you ever listen to "Christian" music that was created by evangelical Christians, and played on such radio networks suck as K-LOVE, or ever read/watch any sermons by evangelists/pastors such as Bill Graham (and family), John Piper, etc..
Do you ever use Protestant produced Bible-studies?
I know that for myself, I HAVE Obviously watched such classic Christian movies such as Jesus of Nazareth, and The Passion (which were obviously Catholic produced films), and have caught your ETWN network from time to time (though I don't agree with the theology sometimes).
Just curious..
J.S.
ya..post #294
Speaking of post #294, would you mind listing the “22 books”?
(Since I listed the 45)
So, how many other lies are in your list?....After listing the books of the New Testament in (6), Isidore goes on in (7) to declare: “These are the canonical seventy-two books...”
How is this a lie when both statements are factual (and you failed to provide any link by which your statement could be examined)? Both sides can quote Isidore, one as the Hebrew canon under Ezra constituting twenty-two books and which correspond to the Prot canon, and others can invoke him as affirming the larger canon of Augustine, which Isidore indeed did.
He writes under XII, The writers of the sacred books,
"These are the writers of the old testament according to the tradition of the Hebrews..."
After listing a number of writers of books of the Hebrew canon, but not listing any of the apocryphal books, he states,
"When the Jews had returned to Jerusalem, this same Esdras the describe, filled with the Divine Spirit, repaired all these books after the burning of the law but the Chaldeans. He corrected all the volumes of the prophets that had been corrupted by the Gentiles, and he constituted the whole Old Testament into twenty-two books, so that there were as many books in the law as they were letters." (Isidore of Seville: De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, p. 35 )
Therefore, both statements are accurate and there is no lie, the Hebrews under Ezra supported a smaller Canon that of Rome.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (Canon of the Old Testament) affirms, “the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
And thus if we were to be consistent with your accusative nature, we could ask what else is there that you hastily call a lie in order to support Rome?
In addition, the reality is that lists varied as to what books were Scripture proper, and there was no infallible indisputable Canon until Trent, and therefore disagreements continued down through the centuries it right into Trent.
Which means that Luther did not dissent from an infallible Canon in his nonbinding (as he so stated) list of books, and in fact had company within Catholic scholarship for his doubts, and following an ancient tradition, he included the Apocrypha in his Bible but as separate from those books which he held as canonica l.
See here Excerpts:
The Catholic Encyclopedia states,
Obviously, the inferior rank to which the deuteros were relegated by authorities like Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome, was due to too rigid a conception of canonicity, one demanding that a book, to be entitled to this supreme dignity, must be received by all, must have the sanction of Jewish antiquity, and must moreover be adapted not only to edification, but also to the "confirmation of the doctrine of the Church", to borrow Jerome's phrase. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm)
In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages [5th century to the 15th century] we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome's depreciating Prologus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) ^
“The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm)
"...an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, French Dominican cardinal and theologian, in Tradition and Traditions" [New York: Macmillan, 1966], p. 38).
Even ultra conservative Sugensis allows,
Granted, Catholics during the time of Florence had to give their assent to what Florence decreed, but this did not mean, for sake of conscience, that a Catholic could not contest what Florence said about the canon. This is why even Cardinal Cajetan contested Florence‘s canon list. So yes, Luther could contest the canon prior to Trent and do so quite legitimately. — http://catholicintl.com/question-83-july-2008/
Thank you.
As you said;
...I would hope provides summation which refutes the statement G Larry provided as response to myself, in his own comment #380, precluding any further need for myself to address the continuance of his own claim that there was "a lie", for as you have well enough re-encapsulated, there was not.
Will G Larry acknowledge his own error in this? Is that too much to ask? If so --- why?
But thanks Larry, for this having become (by accident?) yet another juncture where it can be seen that Hebrews 'in-the-know', as that saying goes, supported a smaller 'canon' than did later-arriving-on-scene Christians often did, with this early witness, Isidore, not himself relying upon claim that there be some disputation as to what the Hebrews regarded as holy writ --- at the very least --- in Ezra the scribe's own era.
This helps underline once again much of why Jerome wrote his prologues and introductions to what he himself termed Apocrypha, in regards to what became known much later than Jerome as deuterocanon, a term coined by ---or at the least first found in the literature --- as used by Sixtus of Siena soon (within 2 years) after closure of the proceedings of the Council of Trent (which proceeding had stretched out for very nearly 18 years).
I would 'sigh' here but that would be unproductive:) Well my point is I lost count how many times you present this information and it seems many just don't read it and don't go to the links. Well done again.
PS: I went to the links and great information and these are not "flame wars" type of sites, but scholarly productions which are fair with the historical information available.
(Since I listed the 45)
I already have [briefly] touched upon why the count differs, with some information as towards explanation for that having been supplied to you previously also, in the link boatbums provided; The Original Number of Old Testament Books in her own comment #370.
Further consideration should include that the Hebrews in ancient times, and up until the time of Christ and somewhat further on, were not themselves bookbinders, but rather used scrolls, with those being organized or counted differently than "books" of the OT are commonly divided up (and thus 'counted) today, but with the content itself being extremely close to the same as so-called Protestant OT canon (a few passages or verses differing perhaps?) unless one delves further into translation issues themselves, and the [usually slight] differences which can be seen when comparing various ancient manuscripts.
Speaking of which;
When Jesus Himself read from a scroll in the Temple in Jerusalem, does anyone in their right mind really think He read from Greek language LXX scroll? ...if you'll forgive my importing into the conversation here a "any true Scotsman" sort of logic, for in this regard Jesus was most likely as true a Scotsman who ever walked (although I doubt he played golf, wore mis-matched plaid, or drank Scotch liquor). hehhehheh...
But He was thrifty? (Scotch thrift, ya'know?) regardless of Judas seeing the woman anointing His feet as being wasteful. Judas was simply jealous for the coinage...making himself be a proto-London'er of the Canary Wharf type perhaps?
He also writes,
The Hebrews, accept the Old Testament, as authorized by Ezra. In accordance with the number of letters in their alphabet, it consists of twenty-two books, divided into three groups: the law, the prophets, and the Hagiographa [the Writings: see here .]
After listing the names of books and these three categories he proceeds to add,
We include a fourth group, not and the Hebrew canon of Old Testament books: the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiaticus; Tobit; Judith; and the two books of Maccabees.
The Jews keep these separate, as part of the apocryphal writings...- Isidore of Seville's Etymologies: Complete English Translation. Book VI, p. vi.1,1.5
Isidore was a scholar and prolific writer, among other things, with one aspect being that he goes overboard in finding a a symbolic reason or significance behind most every number. WP says "he contributed two harsh decisions to the Fourth Council of Toledo: Canon 60 calling for the forced removal of Jewish children from the parents and their education by Christians and Canon 65 forbidding Jews and Christians of Jewish origin from holding public office."
While relates to the Mortara Affair .
Being that those writings were strongly related to the other which has been under discussion, with the two works almost copies of one another in places -- with one having condensed version of the other --something along those lines -- consideration of the possibility that the quote which was proclaimed to be a lie (but as it turns out, was NOT) may be found in some form in the Etymologies by the same author (Isidore) I further assumed that even if the quote not be found there, if but in similar wording, that it be all but a certainty there would be a bit of further discussion on the subject, even much as you did bring.
It comes as supporting confirmation --- that in the other work, Isidore was referring to Ezra having in his own time, set or rather, re-established the Hebrew 'canon', with available commentary (is mention found in scripture? perhaps some there... I seem to recall, but then wider commentary from the Jews also? this I will further assume) which Isidore was relying upon in his later times (later than Ezra by many centuries) when Isidore made commentary concerning it.
It does [again] underline that although the Hebrews did not have a word which is translatable directly into 'canon', the principle or idea was long their own, and that at the time of Ezra, there was a structured form and definition as to contents of Hebrew 'canon', or accepted works, with those of course having something of their own nature or place, in that the books of Moses were taken with differing regard (as Law) whereas books of Ketuvim (as you gave link for explanation) had their own place as divine writ, with books (scrolls) of the prophets their own divine regard, with them all together having their own places in working as one together.
So, 20 folks citing 22 books is no “proof” whatsoever, as to whether the 7 books in question, are present or not!
You want a link to my hard cover book?
Buy your own!
Here’s the quote:
From Isidore of Seville “De Ecclesiasticis Officiis”:
XI.The Books of the Testaments
“(4) First there are five books of the Law, that is, of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Sixteen historical books follow them: single books of Joshua, son of Num, namely, and Judges, as well as Ruth; four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, single books of Tobit and Esther and Judith, and two books of Maccabees,. In addition to these there are sixteen prophetic books: single books of twelve the prophets, and these indeed are the prophetic books. (5) After these, there are eight books of verses that are written in a different meter among the Hebrew, that is the Book of Job, the Book of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, rebook of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. And thus are completed the forty-five books of the Old Testament.”
After listing the books of the New Testament in (6), Isidore goes on in (7) to declare: “These are the canonical seventy-two books...”
Also, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”, de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. Its ancient version, the Vetus Latina (less correctly the Itala), had admitted all the Old Testament Scriptures.
As I quoted AGAIN in Post 391, Isidore is very clear in his support for all 45 Books:
From Isidore of Seville “De Ecclesiasticis Officiis”:
XI.The Books of the Testaments
“(4) First there are five books of the Law, that is, of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Sixteen historical books follow them: single books of Joshua, son of Num, namely, and Judges, as well as Ruth; four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, single books of Tobit and Esther and Judith, and two books of Maccabees,. In addition to these there are sixteen prophetic books: single books of twelve the prophets, and these indeed are the prophetic books. (5) After these, there are eight books of verses that are written in a different meter among the Hebrew, that is the Book of Job, the Book of Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, rebook of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Lamentations of Jeremiah. And thus are completed the forty-five books of the Old Testament.”
After listing the books of the New Testament in (6), Isidore goes on in (7) to declare: “These are the canonical seventy-two books...”
And with "the law" sometimes being used for more than the Torah. For regarding Psalms and the Writings,
The Lord (Mt. 21:16,42; 22:44; 23:39; 25:41; 27:46) the multitudes (Mt. 21:9; 27:35; Jn. 6:31) and even the devil (Ps 91:11,12) invoked Psalms in the gospels, and the Holy Spirit to the Jews in Acts (Acts 1:20; 2:25-28,31,34; 13:22) and is called Scripture, (Jn. 19:28) it supports this as Scripture and argues for Writings being included as "the law and the prophets" (Jn. 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; cf. Ps. 69:4; 82:6; 89:28, 29; 110:4) and as part of the books the Lord referred to as Scripture in Lk. 24:44. 1 Corinthians 14:21 is also called
Plus we have clear quotes of Proverbs. (Romans 2:6; 3:15; 12:20; Heb. 12:5,6; Ja. 4:6; 1Pt. 5:5) Thus other of the Writings may be included as accepted Scripture, to which Paul for instance references. In many traditional copes of the Hebrew Bible Psalms is the first of the Writings, and a close association to the Prophets is also seen in the DSS.
Why? I already gave you the link to that section, while your quote is irrelevant, for the issue is not whether he supported the apocryphal books, as i myself substantiate he did, but that he also substantiated the smaller Hebrew canon, in distinction to his own.
I am sure you can read: Therefore, both statements are accurate and there is no lie" as you alleged. The quote boatbums i see supplied stated, "Isidore of Seville (600 A.D.) said the Old Testament was settled by Ezra the priest into twenty-two books “that the books in the Law might correspond in number with the letters.” (Liber de Officiis)
Is that a lie?
Again irrelevant, as it contradicts nothing i said, but you left out his statements affirming the Hebrew canon was smaller. And why link to what i already did (i thought i provided the second also) one also) one
Also irrelevant, as the issue is not whether the larger canon has ancient support, as did the smaller, but whether Luther just tossed out the seven books considered canonical since the beginning of Church history, and due to his doctrinal distinctions, as if this was an infallible indisputable canon and he had no Catholic support and scholarly reasons for his doubts.
It was not indisputable, and thus as said and substantiated, scholarly disagreement continued thru the centuries and right into Trent, even by one of Luther's opponents, the esteemed Cardinal Cajetan, among others.
And this was not because they favored reformed doctrine, but for scholarly reasons, which Luther provided himself, while not making his canon binding or final, and taking the time to translated apocryphal books and placing them separate as per an ancient tradition.
Moreover, Prot. Bibles before him contained the apocryphal books.
You seem to have been fed a biased info on Luther. The page to see on Luther's canon is here . Prots hardly follow Luther as pope, or see him as faultless, and who was quite Catholic compared with evangelicals today, while the Prot. Bible has ancient support, and has been far more sold and read, uncompelled, as bread for the soul. To the praise of God whose Spirit inspired it. it is.
The first is the so-called “Decretal of Gelasius”,
The problem is that the authority of the Decretum Gelasianum , is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that is was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. More :
The Decretum Gelasianum is attributed to Pope Damasus I, who commissioned Jerome to prepare a standard Latin version of the Scriptures (the Latin Vulgate) Yet despite the Decretum Gelasianum being invoked as proof of a settled larger canon,
Jerome followed the Hebrew canon and by means of prefaces called the reader's attention to the separate category of the apocryphal books. Subsequent copyists of the Latin Bible, however, were not always careful to transmit Jerome's prefaces, and during the medieval period the Western Church generally regarded these books as part of the holy Scriptures.” — Introductory materia l to the appendix of the Vulgata Clementina, text in Latin
Pope Damasus I is quite a character himself, having employed a gang of thugs in seeking to secure his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. (J. N. D. Kelly, “The Oxford Dictionary of Popes” (Hardcover), pp. 32 ) He is recorded as being the first to call in secular power to attain ecclesiastical ends, unlike the apostolic NT church, thus acting as a church walking according to the flesh.
You agree with these statements? See above.
Thank God for what helps. I think the problem is that of Catholics being more Catholic than past men and even popes. And of the firewall exhorted by such teachings you have heard before, as in
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."
“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit..- (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XXIII .
How can you say that there is no “proof” of that distinction unless you reject what even your own source (Isidore) state ?
He lists books of the Hebrew canon and then distinctly says, "We include a fourth group, not and the Hebrew canon of Old Testament books: the book of Wisdom, Ecclesiaticus; Tobit; Judith; and the two books of Maccabees."
Which is in addition to the abundant testimony of others as the the Prot canon having ancient support.
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.
