Greetings:
Did you actually read Lecture 23. So now you are comparing me to the cultist, whoever they are, really, that is all you have. Ad-hominem’s are a sign of someone who deep down knows they are wrong.
Again, read Lecture 23.
Now as for Saint Cyril and the Deuterocanonicals, the principle of canonicity was multifaceted, 1), to be read in Church in the Liturgy was one criteria, one can go back and look at the Muratorian Fragment, circa 180AD, a canonical list by the Church of Rome to find that statement. 2) Another principle would it be used in Doctrine.
So Saint Cyril, who was interested in Liturgy, might have not wanted certain books to be read in Liturgy, for whatever reason. However, for teaching Doctrine, he quoted from the Story of Susanna, which in the LXX version of Daniel, he also quoted from Baruch, Wisdom and Sirach and 1 Macc.
Now, JND Kelly, the Anglican Patristic Scholar, wrote with respect to the Deuterocanonicals
“It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Protestant Old Testament] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or Deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. .. . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries. . . the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the Deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary” (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54). “
Now again, back to Cyril, he does state that Baruch could be read in Liturgy. He doesn’t say the other 6 Deuterocanonicals should be read in Church. Why? perhaps because those books when being read in Church were being misused to set unorthodox Doctrine.
Fr. Felix Just, S.J. P.hD [http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT_Canon.htm] summarizes the criteria for NT canonicity as follows:
The 4 principles of canonicity were 1)Apostolic Origin [for NT], 2) Read in Liturgy, 3)Universal acceptance, and 4 Consistent Message [the books contained theology that was consistent with other revealed Doctrines, i.e. Divinity of Christ, and helped the Church form her doctrine]. So some books clearly met criteria 1 and 2 [see Muratorian Fragment for the 22 to 23 or so NT books that Rome recognized pretty quickly]. Even some NT books were questioned and at times were not allowed to be read in Church, i.e. Revelation, because even back then, somebody was misinterpreting it.
Now, the OT can’t be put into the Canon of the Christian Bible based on 1, so it had to be included based on 2, 3, or 4.
Again, Cyril believed in the practice of praying for the Dead, which is in 2 Macc. And as I stated earlier, he cited from the LXX version of Daniel [with the Sussana story and Bel and Dragon; Daniel 13:34-41, Daniel 14:36] and 1 Mac 2:58 {See Lecture 14 and 16}; He cites Wisdom 13:5 and another portion of the LXX Daniel From Chapter 3 with the Song of the 3 Children [Lecture 9 I think], he sites Sirach 3:21-22 in Lecture 6, Baruch 3:35-37 in Lecture 9.
In summary, Saint Cyril of Jerusalem’s principle of Canonicity was really only Principle of Canonicity 2 that I listed above. Cyril was serious about Liturgy, which is what Lecture 23 that I linked is all about. Now, he certainly uses the Deuterocanonicals with respect to Principle of Canonicity 4 that I listed above and used them frequently to teach Doctrine. Protestants, and the notion of “sola scriputura” is largely a based more on principle 4, is it used for Doctrine. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem used those Deuterocanonicals clearly to teach Doctrine, but other than Baruch, he did not want them read in the Liturgy.
I'm sorry, I just can't help but to note the desperation to try to get me to worry about the liturgy, or a thousand other issues, rather than the one at hand: Sola Scriptura. I want to note for all those reading: You want me to read Lecture 23 to learn about the Liturgy, even though I've challenged you on Sola Scriptura, and I've not said a word about the liturgy or any other issue (except for my anecdote on Cyril's canon).If you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, but don't accuse me of knowing that I'm "wrong," when, obviously, I'm right. That's the real sign of someone who "deep down knows they are wrong." They declare victory and then start throwing out distractions.
As for the Canon, this also will be my overwhelming win:
(JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 53-54). “
JND Kelly is either negligent or being misquoted. Irenaeus also quoted from the Shepard of Hermes and called it scripture, and, as a matter of fact, many church writers quoted from books that Rome does not consider canonical, or did not quote from books that were considered canonical. A failure to note this distorts the issue, and makes it seem as if the apocrypha were regarded as scripture and used for doctrine. The issue isn't as muddled as you make it out to be, as will be shown shortly.
The vast majority of church fathers held to a multi-tiered view of scripture absolutely hostile to Catholic views of today. They believed in some books as being scripture "for the edification of morals," never to be used for doctrine, and others for the establishment or defense of doctrines:
Athanasius on the apocrypha:
“But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [New and Old testament], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read.” (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)
Rufinus on the Apocrypha:
“But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named ‘Apocrypha.’ These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 36, p. 557-558.).
Jerome on the Apocrypha
“These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.
You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).
As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).
Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures...Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon...Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels...the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles...let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs...Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt (Ibid., Letter CVII.12).
What the Savior declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Savior, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater...”(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).
Cardinal Cajetan calls them not “canonical for the confirmation of the faith,” but “canonical” only in a certain sense for the “edification of the faithful.”
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)
Official prefaces to Latin translations, endorsed by Popes, of the scripture making the same distinction:
“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.” ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)