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
Greetings:
That is your view of Lecture 23, Mine contradicts yours. The Letter describes in essence the Catholic Liturgy, it is very heavy in Eucharistic Doctrine, has a Catholic/Eastern Orthodox understanding of ministry, prayers for the Dead, In fact, what he wrote looks just like the Catholic Liturgy I attended last night. Again, in closing that Catechetical Letter [which means teaching or instruction] he closes with the directive “Keep these Traditions inviolate”
As for Jerome, there was never any duress for him to translate the Deuterocanonicals. Even a Reformed polemist like Schaff in his Introductory Letter regarding Jerome states his strong defense for the Hierarchical Church and in particular the Pope of Rome. Jerome was a man of the Church, not one to come up with his own Church. That would be left for Luther and Calvin.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.iv.I.html
Jerome in the 4th century yes, given the Jewish scholars in the Holy Land and their views of the LXX did question them. But he was in the minority in terms of those who even questioned them. Again, the Anglican Church History Scholar, JND Kelley in his word Early Christian Doctrines writes:
“In the first two centuries at any rate 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 [3, 4; 27, 5] and Barnabas [6, 7], and from 2 (4) Esdras and Ecclesiasticus in the latter. [12, 1; 19, 9] Polycarp [10, 2] cites Tobit, and the Didache [4, 5] [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to [Against Heresies, Book IV, cap. 26, 3; Book IV, cap. 38, 3; Book V, cap. 5, 2; Book V, cap. 35, 1] Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon 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 [page 54])
Jerome, conscious of the difficulty of arguing with Jews on the basis of books they spurned and anyhow regarding the Hebrew original as authoritative, was adamant [Preface to Sam. and Mal.] that anything not found in it was ‘to be classed among the apocrypha,’ not in the canon; later he grudgingly conceded [Preface to Sal.] that the Church read some of these books for edification, but not to support doctrine. For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense. (page. 55)
So as I stated again, the questioning of the Deutercanonicals is the very minority view and in the end, Jerome stayed Loyal to the Church. Jerome’s minority view did not win out and for the record, the Eastern Orthodox retain the Deueterocanonicals as well, in fact some of them include 3 and 4 Maccabees. Now how they view them in terms of principles of canonicity, I don’t know. For the Orthodox a book can be canonical if it is read in the Liturgy and/or if used to define Doctrine. Some books may be canonical under both, some only 1, but they do include the deuterocanonicals among their OT canon.
And the word Retractiones used by Augustine only means reconsiderations, revisions is only a stretch of mine, but I am not sure it can loosely mean that. The most literal meaning is reconsiderations. I stand by that statement. Augustine did not Retract anything.
Apostolic Sees did have authority, among them Rome was more authority than others, the only 2 that had authority that could be considered close to Rome was Alexandria and Antioch.
However Saint Augustine interpreted Peters Confession or his Person with respect to Matthew 16:16-18 is not relevant to the reality that Augustine recognized the Rome as chief apostolic see. You will see no statements to the contrary on that no matter how long you try to search. I have read most of Augustines works. No rejection of Rome as chief apostolic See. In fact, you will see over and over gain, the opposite
Sermon 131 where Augustine, when referring to the Pelagians states 2 Councils have been sent to the Apostolic See and there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end, would that the error too might sometime be at an end. [This is the famous sermon that is put in a concise Rome has Spoken]. I am not going to get into all that debate but it does show Saint Augustine saw Rome having authority. In his Letter to Generosus, 400D, he speaks of Peter and his confession of faith and then lists the Succession of the Bishops of Rome and among them, no Donatists will be found.
The Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 both defined the Canon the same way as was done earlier during Pope Damasus time and which was done by Pope Innocent’s Letter of 405 sent to Bishop Exsuperius. Saint Augustine was a signer of those Canons and decrees and it directed that its Decrees be sent to the “Church beyond the sea to confirm this canon” [That Church was Rome]
The Council at Carthage in 419 again, as its 2 predecessors, state that its decrees should be sent to Boniface, Pope and Bishop of Rome.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm
Now, I will not type all of Pope Innocent I Letter sent to Bishop Exsuperius but the canon their is no different than what the “Decree of Damasus” which you claim doesn’t exist, it is no different than the canons of Hippo and Carthage. So Innocent’s Letter is confirmation of an already established 46OT and 27NT in Rome as of 405 which suggest it was already in place before Innocent became Pope as the tone of the Letter states “A short annotation shows what books are to be accepted as canonical...”The tone seems like it was not a matter of debate in Rome by that time.
With respect to Rome not being an Apostolic see. Really, You? It was an Apostolic see because both Peter and Paul were martyred there. That is why? There is no dispute on that by any Church Father that both Peter and Paul went to Rome to build up that Church and both were martyred in Rome. I challenge either you to find any Father that says otherwise. Even if you do not see the structure of the text in Canon 6 of Nicea as indicating Rome had an earlier established primacy than Alexandria and Antioch, the mere fact that Nicea mentions Rome and the other 2 Sees as having Primacy is in and off itself confirmation they are Apostolic Sees. And why, because all had some connection to Saint Peter.
Now, back to Jerome and the Vulgate. I never said he was censured. There was apparently some criticism of him going around in Rome. He actually writes to Saint Augustine and asks him about his role in this and whether he [Augustine] wrote a letter against Jerome. Augustine said he was critical of Jerome, but not against him. The tow ironed out their differences and remained friends. I don’t know who was criticizing Jerome, perhaps some clergy in Rome who did not like him. It doesn’t matter, no Pope ever criticized him
You state there was no Synod at Rome in 382 and a Decree of Damasus. Nonsense, There are 3 parts that are extant. Even the Gelasian Decree, a 5th century editing of the decree, is viewed legitimate. And as I noted earlier, Pope Innocent, who became Pope in 401 and who succeeded Damasus [died in 384] by 17 years, wrote a letter to a Bishop in Gaul detailing in pretty direct language the Canon.
There were 2 Councils held in Constantinopile, one in 381 and 1 in 382, which would have occurred around the same time as the “Council in Rome”. Constantinopile 381 would be recognized as an Ecumenical Council not until the Council of Ephesus in 431. In both of those 2 Councils, there is internal evidence of a Council in Rome around the same time, well one is clear evidence, the Opening Synod Letter speaks of a council in Rome and in the Canons of 381 Constantinopile, there is mention of a Tome from the Western Church, which in all likelihood that this was the Tome/Decree of Pope Damasus. In particular, given Canon 3 at Constantinople which now put that Bishop ahead of Alexandria and Antioch, when one reads Pope Damasus, that Tome very likely indeed is his for it says,
“The First See, therefore is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church...The second See is Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by Peter, and he preached the word of truth and was gloriously martyred. The third honorable see is Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where he first dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christian was first applied. [Fr. Jurgens, Faith of our Fathers, Volume 1, pp.406-407”
And no, scholars don’t all agree with the guy you cite. For example, the article on the NT canon at Newadvent speaks of the Decrees of Damasus, and yes while some of it does date to the 6th century, not all of the decrees are from that time and some are from an earlier date again, internal evidence from the Council of Constantinopile in 381 and 382 speak of a Council in Rome and a Tome from the Western Church.
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3809.htm
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3809.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
As for the quote regarding 3 proofs from scripture, rather than 7 is from this statement in Saint Jerome’s Letter number 51:7
7. “Instead of the three proofs from Holy Scripture which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, behold I have given you seven.”
I linked it earlier, you can read it if you like. And Wisdom 2:23 is quoted, do I need to quote it for you or can you find a Catholic bible on-line and will what work for you. It is a quote from Wisdom 2:23
http://newadvent.org/fathers/3809.htm
You are forcing RCs to act contrary to their church, and they are compelled to make all conform to her.
VEHEMENTER NOS, Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906: "...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastor."
“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:
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” Sources
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.
That is consistent with that logic, but which could be used against Hebrew texts which are invoked. However, it is among these that we a connotation of authority that is unique. See here for a good analysis of the use of the OT in the New.