But...
...there goes HALF of everything I do!
Posted on 05/17/2014 4:31:22 PM PDT by Gamecock
A number of years ago, Albert Sundberg wrote a well-known article arguing that the early church fathers did not see inspiration as something that was uniquely true of canonical books.[1] Why? Because, according to Sundberg, the early Church Fathers saw their own writings as inspired. Ever since Sundberg, a number of scholars have repeated this claim, insisting that the early fathers saw nothing distinctive about the NT writings as compared to writings being produced in their own time period.
However, upon closer examination, this claim proves to be highly problematic. Let us consider several factors.
First, the early church fathers repeatedly express that the apostles had a distinctive authority that was higher and separate from their own. So, regardless of whether they viewed themselves as “inspired” in some sense, we have to acknowledge that they still viewed the inspiration/authority of the apostles as somehow different.
A few examples should help. The book of 1 Clement not only encourages its readers to “Take up the epistle of that blessed apostle, Paul,”[2] but also offers a clear reason why: “The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ, Jesus the Christ was sent from God. The Christ therefore is from God and the Apostles from the Christ.”[3] In addition the letter refers to the apostles as “the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church.”[4]
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, also recognizes the unique role of the apostles as the mouthpiece of Christ, “The Lord did nothing apart from the Father…neither on his own nor through the apostles.”[5] Here Ignatius indicates that the apostles were a distinct historical group and the agents through which Christ worked. Thus, Ignatius goes out of his way to distinguish own authority as a bishop from the authority of the apostles, “I am not enjoining [commanding] you as Peter and Paul did. They were apostles, I am condemned.”[6]
Justin Martyr displays the same appreciation for the distinct authority of the apostles, “For from Jerusalem there went out into the world, men, twelve in number…by the power of God they proclaimed to every race of men that they were sent by Christ to teach to all the word of God.”[7] Moreover, he views the gospels as the written embodiment of apostolic tradition, “For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them.”[8]
Likewise, Irenaeus views all the New Testament Scriptures as the embodiment of apostolic teaching: “We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.”[9] Although this is only a sampling of patristic writers (and more could be added), the point is clear. The authoritative role of the apostles was woven into the fabric of Christianity from its very earliest stages.
Second, there is no indication that the early church fathers, as a whole, believed that writings produced in their own time were of the same authority as the apostolic writings and thus could genuinely be contenders for a spot in the NT canon. On the contrary, books were regarded as authoritative precisely because they were deemed to have originated fom the apostolic time period.
A couple of examples should help. The canonical status of the Shepherd of Hermas was rejected by the Muratorian fragment (c.180) on the grounds that was produced “very recently, in our own times.”[10] This is a clear indication that early Christians did not see recently produced works as viable canonical books.
Dionysius of Corinth (c.170) goes to great lengths to distinguish his own letters from the “Scriptures of the Lord” lest anyone get the impression he is composing new canonical books (Hist. eccl. 4.23.12). But why would this concern him if Christians in his own day (presumably including himself) were equally inspired as the apostles and could produce new Scriptures?
The anonymous critic of Montanism (c.196), recorded by Eusebius, shares this same sentiment when he expresses his hesitancy to produce new written documents out of fear that “I might seem to some to be adding to the writings or injunctions of the word of the new covenant” (Hist. eccl. 5.16.3). It is hard to avoid the sense that he thinks newly published books are not equally authoritative as those written by apostles.
Third, and finally, Sundberg does not seem to recognize that inspiration-like language can be used to describe ecclesiastical authority—which is real and should be followed—even though that authority is subordinate to the apostles. For instance, the writer of 1 Clement refers to his own letters to the churches as being written “through the Holy Spirit.”[11] While such language certainly could be referring to inspiration like the apostles, such language could also be referring to ecclesiastical authority which Christians believe is also guided by the Holy Spirit (though in a different manner).
How do we know which is meant by Clement? When we look to the overall context of his writings (some of which we quoted above), it is unmistakenly clear that he puts the apostles in distinct (and higher) category than his own. We must use this larger context to interpret his words about his own authority. Either Clement is contradicting himself, or he sees his own office as somehow distinct from the apostles.
In sum, we have very little patristic evidence that the early church fathers saw their own “inspiration” or authority as on par with that of the apostles. When they wanted definitive teaching about Jesus their approach was always retrospective—they looked back to that teaching which was delivered by the apostles.
But...
...there goes HALF of everything I do!
narses: picture time!!
Imagine what would happen WITH a lot of them!!
Mormonism claims HE ain't:
Well... he has claimed to be LDS; but, since there are LOT's of those groups, he needs to be VERY specific if he also claims to be MORMON.
*The following is a letter from Elder Lance B. Wickman, General Counsel of the Church to publishers of major newspapers, TV stations and magazines. It was sent out on Tuesday, June 24, 2008.
Recent events have focused the media spotlight on a polygamous sect near San Angelo, Texas, calling itself the “Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” As you probably know, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has absolutely no affiliation with this polygamous sect. Decades ago, the founders of that sect rejected the doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, were excommunicated, and then started their own religion. To the best of our knowledge, no one at the Texas compound has ever been a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Unfortunately, however, some of the media coverage of the recent events in Texas has caused members of the public to confuse the doctrines and members of that group and our church. We have received numerous inquiries from confused members of the public who, by listening to less than careful media reports, have come to a grave misunderstanding about our respective doctrines and faith. Based on these media reports many have erroneously concluded that there is some affiliation between the two – or even worse, that they are one and the same.
Over the years, in a careful effort to distinguish itself, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has gone to significant lengths to protect its rights in the name of the church and related matters. Specifically, we have obtained registrations for the name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” “Mormon,” “Book of Mormon” and related trade and service marks from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and corresponding agencies in a significant number of foreign countries.
We are confident that you are committed to avoiding misleading statements that cause unwarranted confusion and that may disparage or infringe the intellectual property rights discussed above. Accordingly, we respectfully request the following:
Stated simply, we would like to be known and recognized for whom we are and what we believe, and not be inaccurately associated with beliefs and practices that we condemn in the strongest terms. We would be grateful if you could circulate or copy this letter to your editorial staff and to your legal counsel.
We thank you for your consideration of these important matters.
Sincerely,
Lance B. Wickman
General Counsel
...your BIBLE???
"OOOops! Too bad!" for the 'dead' is FOUND IN SCRIPTURE!
Luke 16:19-31
Are you REQUIRED to 'believe' it?
Greetings:
I was not using Liturgy as a change the topic. I cited Lecture 23, which is a Liturgical Lecture, and how it actually refutes your notion of “sola Scriptura”.
The axiom Lex Orandi Lex Credendi was a theological principle of the early Church. The Law of Prayer dictates the Law of Faith[Creed] and thus the reverse, the Law of Faith dictates the Law of Prayer. Cyril’s Lecture 23 is just being used to refute “Sola Scriptura” as He cites Tradition in the letter as to why The Liturgy, as he explained it, reflects orthodox Doctrine and why the Church prays what it prays at the Liturgy.
As for you use of the title Retractions for Saint Augustine, that is nonsense. The Latin Title was “Retractationes” which does not mean “Retractions” The meaning is Reconsiderations or Revisions. In other words, Saint Augustine was only giving his words a critical reexamination. As Fr. Jurgens states in Volume 3 of the The Faith of the Early Fathers, Augustine had very little to retract.
And this statement followed by the quote from Saint Augustine is very Catholic
And in his mode for determining whether a book is canonical:
“But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,—those of them, at least, that arc called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.” (Augustine, NPNF1: Vol. II, On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapter 8. See also John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., De Doctrina Christiana, Book II, Chapter 8 (New York: New City Press, 1996), p. 134.)
He is clearly articulating the principle of Universal acceptance, which I cited earlier. However, read the text carefully, among all the Churches, there was ones that have greater weight should hold sway, but if there is some disagreement between the Churches of Greater authority {Rome being 1st, followed by Alexandria then Antioch], he is stating the CHurches of the highest authority should hold weight. Now, as you note, the greater number of smaller Churches holding a different canon than the ones of greater authority, was something not likely to happen.
All in all, it does concede a primacy to he major CHurches in determining the canon.
As for his statement regarding Sirach, the fact that he questions rather he should be counted as a prophet does not negate canonicity. That is a different question. Esther and Ruth are in the OT canon in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants yet nobody, to my knowledge, calls them Prophets. I don’t think Job is really called a prophetic book, more “Wisdom Literature”. Saint Augustine certainly held to the canonicity of that book. His statement is more a “Reconsideration” whether or not Sirach should be considered a prophet. Not whether Sirach is canonical.
If you go back and read Saint Augustine’s statement on the Canon that was written in his work Christian Instruction [a work that spanned 4 books from 397 to 426], in that work he lists Sirach in the Prophetic books. Among the prophetic books, he calls some Major. He calls some books the Historical books, those would be Ruth, Esther, Job is put as an Historical book, the 2 of Esdras, the 2 of Macabbees, etc.
He never reconsidered the canon that he laid out here, he only reconsidered, in the case of Sirach, whether it should be considered a prophetic book. In today’s terminology, the Catholic scholarship puts it more as Wisdom Literature than as a Prophetic book.
Now with respect to Saint Jerome, his statements regarding the Deuterocanonicals are probably the strongest in terms of non-canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals, yet even the quote you cite, which is accurate, he acknowledges that they are read in the Church [what I referred to as Principle of Canonicity 2 in a an earlier post]. Now he also states, while they are read in the Church at Liturgy, he doesn’t think they should be used [are not used] to formulate doctrine.
Ok, lets look at Saint Jerome. He as Pope Damasus’s personal Biblical Scholar and Pope Damasus was a great supporter and friend of Jerome. But Jerome was known to have a bad temper, and his arrogance did not win him many friends in Rome among his fellow clergy so when Pope Damasus died around 385, Jerome left Rome and went to the Holy Land and would die there in 419 or 420. He was asked by Pope Damasus to do new Latin Translation of the bible and it seems he did not have an issue with the Deuterocanonicals until he went to the Holy Land and studied Hebrew under some Jewish Scholars and then at that time, we see him questioning the Deuterocanonicals, although as you noted, he clearly notes they were read in the Liturgy of the Church.
Now the Letter you cite, Letter VIII was written around 394AD. Around that same time, you have a Council in Hippo in 393AD, another one in Carthage in 397 AD [Saint Augustine would have been involved in both of these, most likely], you have Pope Innocent’s Letter to the Bishops of Gaul in 405, all reaffirming the same Canon listed in the Synod of Rome in 382, of which Jerome was present as Pope Damasus’s personal Biblical scholar and secretary. Now, Jerome’s Letter you cited is written around 394. At the same time, Saint Augustine wrote a Letter to Jerome stressing he maintain the tradition of the canon as received by the Church. This letter is written also around 394. Apparently between the year 394 and 404, Saint Augustine apparently wrote a letter critical of Saint Jerome that was sent to Rome. Jerome found about it and asked Augustine and we see this correspondence. In a return Letter, Saint Augustine stated he was critical of Saint Jerome, he is not specific, but he states it was not a “Contra Jerome” letter [Against] and the friendship between the 2, while strained for a while, was repaired and continued on. Letters 72, 73, and 75, do suggest that the criticism of Jerome by Augustine had something to do with his translations in certain places of using the Hebrew text vs. the LXX when translating into Latin.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102072.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102028.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm
If you go to Letter 81, by that time, Saint Augustine and Jerome seemed to have reconciled their friendship.
Around that same period 404AD, Jerome wrote a Letter Against Rufinus in which he states “What sin have I committed by following the Churches” He goes on to say that he thinks using the Hebrew for biblical translation, he does not apologize for, but he also states that he followed the Churches in using the LXX and that the LXX was profitable for the Church because by being written in Greek, it prepared the Gentiles to be ready to hear the Gospel of Christ before he came.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/27102.htm
Now, once we see Jerome, despite having a narrow view of canonicity in the Letter you cited from circa 394, he does, as he defends doctrine against heretical movements frequently cite those same Deuterocanonicals. For example he cites Sirach 3:30; Sirach 13:2 in A letter against Eustochium (Letter 108:16 and 108:21):
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3001108.
In a Letter 58:1 he cites Wisdom 4:9 and the statement “As a boy, Daniel...comes from Daniel 13, the LXX version of Daniel].
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3001058.
In Letter 77:4 written to Oceanus, he cites Baruch 5:5
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3001077.htm
In Letter 31, written before the Letter you cite in 394, he calls Baruch a Prophet citing Baruch Chapter 6
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3001031.htm
In his work “Against Jovinian”, which was a doctrinal work refuting Jovinian’s heresy. In this work, he cites Sirach 27:5 and Sirach 2:1 in Boook 2-Chapter 3. Since this is an “contra Jovinian” work, he is refuting heretical doctrine, I have linked P. Schaff’s ccel version. Footnotes 4692 and 4693 are the references to Sirach 27:5 and Sirach 2:1. Later, in 406, he would write again against Jovinian’s pupil Vigilantium
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.II.html
In Letter 51:6 and 7, he cites Wisdom 2:23 and his opening statement in 51:7 says I have given you 7 proofs from scripture, you asked me for 3.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001051.htm
In Jerome’s Against the Pelegians, written around 415AD, which again, is most certainly a Defense of orthodox Doctrine against the heresy of Pelagius and his followers, he cites Sirach 3:21 in Book 1:33A with the statement “The Book of Wisdom gives an answer to your foolish question” Again, here, I have linked the P. Scaff translation from ccel
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.ix.I_1.html
In another later Letter of Jerome [Number 125:19] written around 411, to a young Monk, he cites Sirach 27:25]
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001125.
Now, back to the early Jerome, in Letter 7:6 written around 374, he cites 2 Macc: 7
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001007.htm
So, in summary, Jerome early on cited the Deuterocanonicals, he was at the Synod of Rome with Pope Damasus, as he states in his own Letters. That Council did draw up the 46OT and 27 book OT around 382. When Pope Damasus died, Jerome’s supporter in Rome was gone, and the clergy in Rome who felt he was ill-tempered and arrogant [he was to a degree] sort of made him feel no longer welcome so he went and lived a monastic life as a monk in the Holy Land. It is at that time, that he learned Hebrew from Jewish Scholars and he became proficient now in Hebrew, as well as Latin and Greek. The influence of the Hebrew scholars seemed to impact Jerome’s view of the canon with respect to the Deuterocanonicals, as His Letter you cited indicated.
However, Jerome was a loyal son of the Catholic Church. He lived, breathed, thought, read the scriptures, read the Church Fathers before him with the Doctrine and Tradition of the Church. So, unlike say some of the 16th century folks, he ultimately sided with the authority of the Catholic Church and in the end he 1)Translated the Deuterocanonicals into His Latin Vulgate, 2) He cited them frequently in his Letters and 3) he cited them in Doctrinal writings against heretical movements led by the likes of Jovinian and Pelagius.
So Saint Jerome, who I agree, is the one Father who had the most questions about the 7 Deuterocanonicals, in the end did not put his personal opinion above the authority of the Church and in the end, he actually was in his writings, a supporter of them in his later years after the 394 Letter that you cite.
Elsie:
Of course I believe it, it is the faith of the Catholic Church held since the Apostles.
This is all very pretty, but after reading Lecture 23, there is nothing there which explicitly contradicts his statement that even his own teachings ought to be disregarded if they cannot be shown out of the scripture, nor is his definition of tradition redefined. This is merely the sophistry he himself attacked when he said we ought not to be taken away by the pretty speech of mere plausibility, but to ultimately confirm each point out of the holy scriptures themselves.
As for you use of the title Retractions for Saint Augustine, that is nonsense. The Latin Title was “Retractationes” which does not mean “Retractions” The meaning is Reconsiderations or Revisions.
Check your definitions:
re·vi·sion noun \ri-ˈvi-zhən\ : a change or a set of changes that corrects or improves something
: a new version of something : something (such as a piece of writing or a song) that has been corrected or changed
Your comment is also another distraction. Instead of responding to Augustine on the "rock" in Matthew and Sirach, you want to debate whether the translated name should be "retractions" or "revisions" or whatnot.
This following statement [by Augustine] is very Catholic...He is clearly articulating the principle of Universal acceptance, which I cited earlier. However, read the text carefully, among all the Churches, there was ones that have greater weight should hold sway, but if there is some disagreement between the Churches of Greater authority {Rome being 1st, followed by Alexandria then Antioch], he is stating the CHurches of the highest authority should hold weight.
It is only Catholic if you want to run over the details. Augustine believed that any church that had received an epistle or was the seat of an Apostle had this authority. Their combined authority, however, is not superior to the majority of the churches, but is to be looked upon "as equal."
Compare to the Catechism, which declares the church has no authority unless under the head of the Pope, the "rock" which Augustine interpreted in an entirely different way:
881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope. 882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403 883 "The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff."404
IOW, you want us to believe that everything is fine and normal with these quotes.
ALL Apostolic Sees, in those days, have an authority:
“You cannot deny that you see what we call heresies and schisms, that is, many cut off from the root of the Christian society, which by means of the Apostolic Sees, and the successions of bishops, is spread abroad in an indisputably world-wide diffusion, claiming the name of Christians” (Augustine, Letter 232)
And Rome, though falsely called (as neither Peter nor Paul actually founded it), is “an” Apostolic See:
“…because he saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” (Augustine, Letter XLIII).
Compare to Pope Leo, who cleverly changes the “an” to a “the,” and makes it a sole primate, in referencing the same writing of Augustine:
“And for a like reason St. Augustine publicly attests that, “the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church” (Ep. xliii., n. 7).
"but if there is some disagreement between the Churches of Greater authority {Rome being 1st, followed by Alexandria then Antioch], he is stating the CHurches of the highest authority should hold weight.
This is a mischaracterization of his words, and the premise of that, that is, Peter being the "Rock," is not believed by Augustine. You want us to believe that Augustine shares your own assumptions.
As for his statement regarding Sirach, the fact that he questions rather he should be counted as a prophet does not negate canonicity.
Don't confuse canonicity with "to confirm doctrine." The apocrypha ARE considered canonical (well, by some), but due to their doubtful status, are either put out entirely by people like Athanasius or Rufinus, or allowed into the canon but with the condition that they are not to be used to "confirm" doctrine.
The answer as to whether the church at large viewed these books as something beyond "church books" is clear from the consensus of fathers.
Now the Letter you cite, Letter VIII was written around 394AD. Around that same time, you have a Council in Hippo in 393AD, another one in Carthage in 397 AD [Saint Augustine would have been involved in both of these, most likely], you have Pope Innocent’s Letter to the Bishops of Gaul in 405, all reaffirming the same Canon listed in the Synod of Rome in 382,
There was no "synod of Rome" that reaffirmed any canon. There are certainly forgeries falsely attributed to one or another person, but no evidence of your claims. Lastly, you ignored the essential problem: The copies of Jerome's translation contain his prefaces to these books. You want me to believe that Jerome was censured for his position on whether they should be used to confirm doctrine, with no evidence but your slick assertions and character assassination of Jerome, but that the church still sanctioned his opinion in the copies they made of the Bible which contained the alleged heretical position for hundreds of years!
Around that same period 404AD, Jerome wrote a Letter Against Rufinus in which he states “What sin have I committed by following the Churches” He goes on to say that he thinks using the Hebrew for biblical translation, he does not apologize for, but he also states that he followed the Churches in using the LXX and that the LXX was profitable for the Church because by being written in Greek, it prepared the Gentiles to be ready to hear the Gospel of Christ before he came.
This is a distortion of the controversy at the time. The "judgment of the churches," which Jerome ends up questioning any how, was the judgment of the churches to follow Theodotion's version of Daniel which included "fables," as Jerome puts it. There was no "judgment" from any Pope, and the councils you mentioned are regional councils, and therefore had no binding on him. He concludes in the end, on the "judgment" of the churches to follow Theodotion's version: "I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be". In the end, Jerome still bashes the "judgment" of the churches in their preference of a heretic over his own work. Here is the text in its full context:
"In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to be writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, "As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion." Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not baring written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be." (Jerome, Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402])
For example he cites Sirach 3:30; Sirach 13:2 in A letter against Eustochium (Letter 108:16 and 108:21):
You mischaracterize his citation, which even he himself says they may be used in the "ecclesiastical" sense, for edification and morals. This is not the same as using it to "confirm" doctrine.
This is hardly a "confirmation of doctrine," whether lions lay in ambush, or if men are tried by fire, as the quotation ssay. Both of these ideas, if not said in the same way, are taught in the scripture themselves, and are so obviously true that they are no different than the way Paul himself quoted Pagan sources in his own teachings: "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. Be not deceived: "evil communications corrupt good manners." Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. (1Co 15:32-34)
From Gill's Commentary: "[A] verse in Menander, the comic poet, who probably took it from Euripides [Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, 3.16]."
Act 17:28 "For in him we live, and move, and have our being;" as certain also of your own poets have said, "For we are also his offspring."
Act 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
The first quote is from Epimenides, the latter from Aratus (quotation marks mine). He uses them to disprove idolatry, from their own idolotrous works. IOW, using your measure, he makes them equal to all scripture.
These matter of fact quotations are very different from, say, using scripture to settle a controversy over doctrine. No one, for example, is going to question Sirach 3:20's assertion that we should not "Look... into things above thee, and search not things too mighty for thee." An example of how scripture really is used to "confirm" a doctrine is in this way, from Augustine's defense of Final Preserverence and his rejection of reading "foreknowledge" as the cause of election in Romans 9 and other places:
“And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens.” And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who “being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “ (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.)
“But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own,” He immediately added, “But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” And so these men were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world, effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for “there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace,” he adds, “then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.”” (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 15:17-19)
“But of such as these [the Elect] none perishes, because of all that the Father has given Him, He will lose none. John 6:39 Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us. John 2:19”. (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints)
In Letter 51:6 and 7, he cites Wisdom 2:23 and his opening statement in 51:7 says I have given you 7 proofs from scripture, you asked me for 3.
You seem to be using Matt1618's argument to the letter, and I am using Beggars All's response to Matt (though the Pagan quotations and Augustine are all me):
Beggar's All replies: "In context, Jerome gives more then seven Scriptures within this passage and there is no way of telling whether the citation from Wisdom is amongst the “seven”.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/06/guest-blogdid-jerome-change-his-mind.html
So, in summary, Jerome early on cited the Deuterocanonicals, he was at the Synod of Rome with Pope Damasus,
You are citing fiction again, as mentioned before:
"The Decree of Gelasius (Decretum Gelasianum), which contains a list of canonical books, was so called because it was formerly ascribed to Pope Gelasius (in office from 492 to 496). Various recensions of the same decree were also ascribed to the earlier Pope Demasus (366-384) and the later Hormisdas (514-523), or to councils over which they presided. But for the past century most scholars have agreed with Ernst von Dobschütz's conclusion that all the various forms of the decree derive from the independent work of an anonymous Italian churchman in the sixth century."
http://www.bible-researcher.com/gelasius.html
The very question is whether the judgment of the Church was right, and invoking Jerome's inclusion of them under duress does not help, since it evidences that Rome had to compel conformity by its primary scholar.
Regarding this, on Judith Jerome states,
“But because this book is found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your request, indeed a demand, and works having been set aside from which I was forcibly curtailed, I have given to this (book) one short night’s work, translating more sense from sense than word from word.” (http://www.fourthcentury.com/jerome-translation-of-the-book-of-judith)
And as regards Tobit, he writes in response to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus ,
“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 be judging the opinion of the Pharisees to displease and to be subject to the commands of bishops...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.” http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_tobit.htm
I also think you are ignoring the difference btwn Scripture proper, and the more generic use of the term which could include writings such as Clement. Luther himself included the DCs, but not without distinction, following an ancient tradition).
As Jerome explains,
“In his famous ‘Prologus Galeatus’, or Preface to his translation of Samuel and Kings, he declares that everything not Hebrew should be classed with the apocrypha, and explicitly says that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias,and Judith are not in the Canon. These books, he adds, are read in the churches for the edification of the people, and not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the Old Testament)
The distinction then is that while “good,” they were not for doctrinal use. As the above source states regarding St. Athanasius, “Following the precedent of Origen and the Alexandrian tradition, the saintly doctor recognized no other formal canon of the Old Testament than the Hebrew one; but also, faithful to the same tradition, he practically admitted the deutero books to a Scriptural dignity, as is evident from his general usage.
An excerpt from the Prologue to the Glossa ordinaria (an assembly of “glosses,” that of brief notations of the meaning of a word or wording in the margins of the Vulgate Bible) expresses this distinction:
The canonical books have been brought about through the dictation of the Holy Spirit. It is not known, however, at which time or by which authors the non-canonical or apocryphal books were produced. Since, nevertheless, they are very good and useful, and nothing is found in them which contradicts the canonical books, the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention,or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon. But the canonical books are of such authority that whatever is contained therein is held to be true firmly and indisputably, and likewise that which is clearly demonstrated from them. (note 124, written in AD 1498, and also found in a work attributed to Walafrid Strabo in the tenth century... http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Apocryphaendnotes3.html)
J.N.D. Kelly states on Jerome: "...later he grudgingly conceded that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine." [J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper, 1960), p. 55].
And Catholic scholarship itself upholds that Jerome held to this distinction.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (in the face of ancient opposition) states,
An analysis of Jerome's expressions on the deuterocanonicals, in various letters and prefaces, yields the following results: first, he strongly doubted their inspiration; secondly, the fact that he occasionally quotes them, and translated some of them as a concession to ecclesiastical tradition, is an involuntary testimony on his part to the high standing these writings enjoyed in the Church at large, and to the strength of the practical tradition which prescribed their readings in public worship. 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)
Moreover, if Jerome was seen as providing sanction to the apocrypha, and if the canon was settled from the 4th c. onward till that maverick Luther dissented, then it seems to have escaped RC scholarship:
Among those dissenting at Trent was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. As Catholic historian Hubert Jedin (German), who wrote the most comprehensive description of the Council (2400 pages in four volumes) explained, “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin further writes:
►: “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271)
While Seripando abandoned his view as a lost cause, Madruzzo, the Carmelite general, and the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon, and the bishops of Castellamare and Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch, and Machabees in the "canon ecclesiae." From all this it is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome and against the anathema and the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” (ibid, 281-282; https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan)
Cardinal Cajetan who himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.
Cajetan stated, in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament (dedicated to Pope Clement VII ):
"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.”
►Following Jerome, Cajetan also relegated the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament to a secondary place where they could serve piety but not the teaching of revealed doctrine. — Jared Wicks tr., Cajetan Responds: A Reader in Reformation Controversy (Washington: The Catholic University Press of America, 1978). See also Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament," Bruce Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (New York: Oxford, 1957), p. 180.)
Cajetan was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others: The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." And that "It was the common opinion of his contemporaries that had he lived, he would have succeeded Clement VII on the papal throne.” — Catholic Encyclopedia>Tommaso de Vio Gaetani Cajetan
Yes, the tradition of Luther, et. al.
If you mean to just quote other individuals, Catholics, then, no, that is not Church Tradition, but picking and choosing those who you wish - and interpreting them as you wish.
Sola scriptura writ into Church Fathers. Your personal picks and interpretations in both cases. It's still your view, just you. Ultimately, your interpretation and your tradition. Perhaps you agree with some others on here: You are the Church.
Catholic Church Fathers built the church, allegedly. I think their opinion is important, even if you don't. Catholicism always disconnects itself from its own church history when it is no longer convenient.
Church Fathers are very important.
Your error is to pick and choose quotes interpreting their meaning and then claim that is what the Church teaches, that one person’s view of tradition as garnered from selected quotes, one person’s view - yours - is Church Tradition.
You’re projecting your individualism on the Church. Just as you do on Holy Scripture.
The Church is not about individuals, either Church Fathers or you.
A dubious statement on your part. I never claimed that's what the "modern" church teaches. If churches and Church Fathers in the past held to different views, that is a very serious threat to the modern church.
The Church is not about individuals, either Church Fathers or you.
To be more accurate, the Romanist church at the time of the reformation was not about individuals. It was about power, and today it is about social justice.
I don’t blame you for changing the subject.
You claimed to follow Tradition. It is your view of tradition, not what the Church taught then or now.
All the fathers recognized the authority of the Church, whatever their opinions. You do not.
The problem is that you invented what my subject was, and then regarded it "changed" when I ignored the strawman.
All the fathers recognized the authority of the Church, whatever their opinions. You do not.
Not true, I just don't believe in the supremacy of Rome, a opinion shared by a great many Fathers.
I again don’t blame you for changing the subject; I do hope you’re beginning to realize I don’t take bait.
If you recognized the authority of the Church you would follow or promote the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Ergo, you do not recognize the authority of the Church.
Sorry, typo, should be:
If you recognized the authority of the Church you would *NOT* follow or promote the doctrine of sola scriptura.
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.