I can play that game too! The church, listening to the authority of Jerome, included his prefaces in copies of the holy scripture identifying those books as apocryphal (and, hence, I can quote them at you to the modern day)!
And, in addition, there is no desperation. Cyril’s Liturgical Lecture 23 is 100% orthodox Catholic.
Again, more of the culty behavior? When I called you desperate... was it over the liturgy, or was it over Sola scriptura? and didn't I directly accuse you of distracting with the liturgy, which I have expressed no interest in it whatsoever? So why are you doing the same thing again, talking about the liturgy... when I was talking about Sola Scriptura?
No matter what you throw out there. Transubstantiation, liturgy, or befuddling his views on the canon, we are still left with Sola Scriptura, a view which destroys you completely... as a denial of sola scriptura is the mainstay of the Romish church. Not anything else.
Want to do something more interesting? After you're done squirming on Cyril's Sola Scriptura and the canon, want to talk about transubstantiation next? I have good material on it.
In addition, the Lectures that I cited shows he quoted from the Deuterocanonicals numerous times.
Absolutely irrelevant: MANY quoted from the "Deuterocanonicals," (others shunned them completely) used them in their teachings, and even called them "scripture," (some of them did) and, in some cases, from books that are not even recognized by Rome. The fact still remains though that the majority in the West held to the distinction that all of the books you hold to today "they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine."
This is important since such a distinction in authority is absolutely alien to the modern view of the Papists who depend on these books (though, even this, not very well) for the "confirmation of doctrine."
Again, for what reason, most likely because when people heard them, they were misusing them.
Why speculate when you can just read Jerome and learn why he and others actually refused to have these books used for the confirmation of doctrine? Well, Rufinus even blamed it on "tradition" for why he rejected those books, while Jerome based it on the canon of the Jews. The latter is more logical, though the former damages you too, as it means that Rufinus received "tradition" that is different from the tradition that Rome "received" or, anyway, invented, a little more than a thousand years later.
It seems on this issue, Saint Augustines’ influence and Jerome’s loyalty to the Pope and the Church’s authority won out over his personal opinion.
Careful with citing Augustine on the matter, as he himself lacks confidence in their authority, for example, in his retractions:
“Moreover, I do not seem to have correctly called prophetic the words in this passage: “Why is earth and ashes proud?” [Sirach 10:9] for the book in which this is read is not the work of one whom we can be certain that he should be called a prophet.” (Augustine, Retractions, Section 3 of the Retractions regarding On Genesis Against the Manicheans, p. 43, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 60, Sister M. Inez Bogan, R.S.M. translator.)
I'll also add that the definition of "Church" was different back then, which is also very important to discuss. For example, starting with his view on the "rock" in Matthew, beginning with his explanation in his Retractions:
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.
"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327
"Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.
"For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)
"And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289
Next, Augustine's views of church authority, which is run, not by the decree of the Pope, but by decisions brought forward by the whole church, or by a majority. For example, in the controversy over Cyprian, when the Romans condemned him:
“There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,-to come at last to him of whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew.” (Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists Book I)
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.)
Later in his life, he would cite them in doctrinal disputes [I think I remember that correctly, but I don’t have the sites on this to corroborate that last statement at this point].
You're free to provide your evidence whenever you're ready!
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.