Posted on 10/06/2019 9:00:00 AM PDT by NRx
Meaning dissident voices versus the faithful I suppose, but the status of the Deuterocanonical books among faithful was that they were disputable, and Luther had that freedom.
And the extensive research testifies to the 39 book (equating to the 22/24 book canon of the Pharisees) Protestant canon as having the greatest magisterial antiquity. Which even Catholic sources affirm.
The compilatory "Glossa Ordinaria" was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic. The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament. Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom. As to Roman authority, the catalogue of Innocent I appears in the collection of ecclesiastical canons sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, and adopted in 802 as the law of the Church in the Frankish Empire; Nicholas I, writing in 865 to the bishops of France, appeals to the same decree of Innocent as the ground on which all the sacred books are to be received.For an understanding of the Ordinary Magisterium you need to look beyond the disputes of academics and look at the day-to-day teachings and practices of the Church. These show that the Deuterocanonical books were received by the Church on an equal basis as the Protocanonical.
Even if we were to accept your premise, all you could show is that there was no consensus on the status the the Deuterocanonical books. So while you might object to the charge that Luther removed these books from the Bible, you would also have to admit that Trent did not add them. All that could be said that they were disputed and that the Protestants fell on one side of this dispute, and that Catholics fell on the other. But here Protestants still have a dilemma. While Catholics can appeal to the authority of the Church to settle this dispute, Protestants can appeal to no authority to support their position. Even an appeal to the consensus of the faithful does not work since, compared to Catholics and the Orthodox, Protestants are in the minority among the Christian faithful.
Are there any of them that point to any of the books found in the apocrypha?
I could find none here-—> https://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/NTChart.htm
Not true. That they were even called "deuterocanonical" (second canon) implies that they were NOT recognized as Divinely-inspired Scripture as were the Protocanonical books (first canon). People knew good and well that those who were supposed as writers of the Deuteroes never claimed Divine inspiration, never saw themselves as prophets of the Lord and acknowledged that there were errors in them. Even Jerome in the fourth century stated these books were not to be used to define doctrines of the Christian faith. It his Latin translation (the Vulgate) they were placed in a separate section between the Old Testament and the New Testament books.
It was only with Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation that the idea of rejecting these books became popular, thus the need for a dogmatic statement at Trent.
Again, simply NOT true! See reasons stated above. Luther included those books in his German translation of the Bible so anyone who tells you he threw them out is plainly ignorant or lying. Trent's "dogmatic" declaration of the RC canon declaring the Deuterocanoncials/Apocryphals as inspired writings not only proved - as Daniel1212 has shown (repeatedly) - that there was permissible disagreement on the status and authority of these books but also that they were NEEDED to try to prove a Biblical basis for the doctrine of Purgatory and Indulgences. It wasn't until John Henry Newman's explanation of the "development of doctrine" that Catholicism dropped its insistence that all her doctrines agreed with Scripture and had the unanimous consent of the fathers. Many Protestant churches continue to read and use these books in liturgy and as edification for the people. This does not mean that they recognize they have authority in matters of doctrine - just as Jerome and others acknowledged from the start. You want to read them? Fine. Just don't presume they are Holy Spirit inspired and binding upon all Christians. They aren't!
That's just it, we don't need to appeal to any church authority to know what writings are from God! The authority of the Word of God is intrinsic because it IS the word of God. The Holy Spirit leads believers into all truth and God's sheep hear His voice in the Holy Scriptures. They have power, for example:
Romans 10:17 ESV
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Romans 1:16 ESV
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Acts 20:32 ESV
And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
1 Peter 1:23 ESV
Since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;
2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
James 1:22 ESV
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 ESV
And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.
Jeremiah 15:16 ESV
Your words were found, and I ate them, and your words became to me a joy and the delight of my heart, for I am called by your name, O Lord, God of hosts.
Psalm 119:105 ESV
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
John 17:17 ESV
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Psalm 119:11 ESV
I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.
Matthew 4:4 ESV
But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Joshua 1:8 ESV
This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success.
1 Corinthians 2:14
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Thank you for not addressing my point that many RCs before and during Luther’s time were doing the same thing, and they’re still embraced.
Ignoring truth won’t make it go away; it just makes you look bad for ignoring it.
So what you’re telling me is that everything Roman Catholicism says is true solely because it comes from Roman Catholicism?
The man is very good at ignoring things he doesn’t like to hear.
Still hasn’t replied to the copypaste of the church fathers teaching sola fide either, and I posted that over a week ago.
It is interesting where you end your quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia. The author continues:...Ecclesiastical usage and Roman tradition held firmly to the canonical equality of all parts of the Old Testament. There is no lack of evidence that during this long period the deuteros were read in the churches of Western Christendom....
So just how does that "interesting" section contradict what I said, since what you do not include is that the Greeks "about the beginning of the twelfth century they possessed a canon identical with that of the Latins, except that it took in the apocryphal III Machabees?"
The issue here has been the fact that, as said, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
Which contradicts the standard Cath. propaganda that Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.
The countless manuscript copies of the Vulgate produced by these ages, with a slight, probably accidental, exception, uniformly embrace the complete Old Testament.
And then some.
1 Esdras (Greek: Ἔσδρας Αʹ), also First Esdras, Greek Esdras, Greek Ezra, or 3 Esdras, is an ancient Greek version of the biblical Book of Ezra in use among the early church, and many modern Christians with varying degrees of canonicity..As part of the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, it is now regarded as canonical in the churches of the East, but apocryphal in the West;..
According to Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, Augustine of Hippo considered it canonical, citing 1 Esdras as canonical 'Ezra' in 'The City of God' at 18:36. [11] Bogaert maintains that under Augustine's influence, it was one of the 'two books of Ezra' (alongside Ezra–Nehemiah) listed in the Biblical canon lists of the Synod of Hippo of 393, and the Council of Carthage of 397.[12][13] Jerome however, considered it as one of the "variety of versions" (exemplaria varietas)[14] of Hebrew 'Ezra' found in the Septuagint, and did not translate it separately from Ezra–Nehemiah.[15][16] Hence, as Jerome's Vulgate version of the bible gradually achieved dominance in Western Christianity, so 1 Esdras no longer circulated, and ceased to be considered canonical in the West. From the 13th century onwards, Vulgate bibles produced in Paris reintroduced a Latin text of 1 Esdras, in response to commercial demand; but the Council of Trent excluded it from its authoritative definition of the canon of the Western Church. Clement VIII placed it in an appendix to the Vulgate along with 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh "lest they perish entirely".[17] However, the use of the book continued in the Eastern Church, and it remains a part of the Eastern Orthodox canon. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Esdras
All of which further testifies to an unsettled canon, as well as a lack of uniformity of the Vulgate (which, while Trent affirmed it as the official RC Bible, yet it could not say which version: " if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic," thus resulting in the scandal of the fanatical papal translator, Pope Sixtus V, with his the Sistine Vulgate, while other differing versions would follow.
The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible, the Mazarin Bible or the B42) , an edition of the Vulgate printed in the 1450s in Latin by Johannes Gutenberg, mixes the apocrypha into the Old Testament, with the Prayer of Manasses following 2 Paralipomenon, and 3 and 4 Esdras following 1 Esdras and Nehemias. The Prayer of Solomon follows Ecclesiasticus. It thus has 50 books in the Old Testament and 27 in the New, for a total of 77 books.
Meanwhile i also read that Jerome's prologues were typically included in medieval copies of the Vulgate. And in his Prologue to the Books of the Kings he states,
“This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.
In his preface to Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs he also states, “As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.” (Shaff, Henry Wace, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, p. 492)
For an understanding of the Ordinary Magisterium you need to look beyond the disputes of academics and look at the day-to-day teachings and practices of the Church. These show that the Deuterocanonical books were received by the Church on an equal basis as the Protocanonical.
Which also means you are anachronistically reading later detailed legislation on the differences btwn magisterial levels and required assent, or wrongly assuming the canon was officially settled and making making the likes of Athanasius of Alexandria (bishop of Alexandria; Cath. church "father;" c. 367), Cyril of Jerusalem (bishop of Jerusalem; doctor of the Cath church; d. circa. 385 AD), Council of Laodicea (363), bishop Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 310–320 – 403), Gregory of Nazianzus (330 – 390; bishop of Nazianzus), Hilary of Poitiers, (c. 310 – c. 367; bishop of Poitiers and a doctor of the Cath church), John of Damascus (patriarch of Constantinople, 9th century), Melito of Sardis (bishop of Sardis, 4th c.) and Origen (Cath. church "father" and thelogian; c. 184 – c. 253), Rufinus (344/345–411; historian, and theologian), Cardinals Seripando, Caietan, Ximenes, (16th c.) etc. with being in dissent, not rendering the required religious assent of intellect and will.
Meanwhile if you want to go by past official RC teaching then you cannot be debating RC doctrine here.
Even if we were to accept your premise, all you could show is that there was no consensus on the status the the Deuterocanonical books. So while you might object to the charge that Luther removed these books from the Bible, you would also have to admit that Trent did not add them.
Rather, as argued, there was no settled, indisputable canon until after the death of Luther, who had substantial and even current scholarly and historical support for his own opinion in that regard, contrary to the standard Cath. propaganda, as seen earlier here.
But here Protestants still have a dilemma. While Catholics can appeal to the authority of the Church to settle this dispute, Protestants can appeal to no authority to support their position.
This indeed is the real argument, yet one that was tried upstream already, but the fact remains that since distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation (which shows how they understood the OT and gospels), then she has no infallible authority (though as said, even secular powers can make rules for those under it).
And of course, the very premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome is itself novel and unScriptural, nowhere seen or promised or essential for authority and preserving faith.
However, I understand that the Catholic premise is that Scripture (and valid tradition and history) only consist of and mean what she says, for which it is argued that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical corporate instruments and magisterial stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Would you agree with that, and so that any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God, and thus damned as Florence etc. states?
Even an appeal to the consensus of the faithful does not work since, compared to Catholics and the Orthodox, Protestants are in the minority among the Christian faithful.
That is a contradiction in terms, re. "Christian faithful," and the numbers are claim, and since the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive definitive source and description of what constitutes a christian is the New Testament, which excludes most Catholics as well as liberals Prots. And the reported the numbers for both (1.3 billion Catholics out of 2.4 billing "Christian") include multitudes who are not faithful, unless you want to Teddy K RCs and Jimmy C as such.
But if you want to invoke consensus of the faithful based upon the members counted as Catholic, then since the majority whom Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death testify to being liberal, then you have a real problem if you are one of the conservative class.
Thought I would post this of a good movie if anyone needs to rest: https://tubitv.com/movies/372434/letters_to_god
Praying for healing of a fatherless young one in a Christian family who was operated on for a brain tumor. but they could not get it all. Has a hard time walking, but has had a good attitude, thank God.
Augustine (De bono viduitatis)
X
As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful, . . .For often have I perceived, with extreme sorrow, many disquietudes caused to weak brethren by the contentious pertinacity or superstitious vacillation of some who, in matters of this kind, which do not admit of final decision by the authority of Holy Scripture, or by the tradition of the universal Church. (Letter to Januarius, 54, 1, 1; 54, 2, 3; cf. NPNF I, I:301)I believe that this practice [of not rebaptizing heretics and schismatics] comes from apostolic tradition, just as so many other practices not found in their writings nor in the councils of their successors, but which, because they are kept by the whole Church everywhere, are believed to have been commanded and handed down by the Apostles themselves. (On Baptism, 2, 7, 12; from William A. Jurgens, editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3: 66; cf. NPNF I, IV:430)
. . . the custom, which is opposed to Cyprian, may be supposed to have had its origin in apostolic tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings. (On Baptism, 5,23:31, in NPNF I, IV:475)
The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? (On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, 1:34, in NPNF I, V:28)
[F]rom whatever source it was handed down to the Church – although the authority of the canonical Scriptures cannot be brought forward as speaking expressly in its support. (Letter to Evodius of Uzalis, Epistle 164:6, in NPNF I, I:516)
The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants [is] certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except Apostolic. (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis, 10,23:39, in William A. Jurgens, editor and translator, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 3 volumes, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1970, vol. 3: 86)
God has placed this authority first of all in his Church. (Explanations of the Psalms, Tract 103:8, PL 37:520-521, in Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and Theological Essay, New York: Macmillan, 1967, 392)
But those reasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from the authority of the church, according to the tradition of our forefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or from the nature itself of numbers, and of similitudes. No sober person will decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, no peaceable person against the church. (On the Trinity, 4,6:10; NPNF I, III:75)
It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true. (Sermon 117, 6)
Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will separate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved . . . ? (Against Julian I:7,34; in Robert B. Eno, Teaching Authority in the Early Church, Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984, 136)
And thus a man who is resting upon faith, hope, and love, and who keeps a firm hold upon these, does not need the Scriptures except for the purpose of instructing others. Accordingly, many live without copies of the Scriptures, even in solitude, on the strength of these three graces. (On Christian Doctrine, I, 39:43, in NPNF I, II:534)
And if any one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the whole Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by apostolical authority, still we can form a true conjecture of the value of the sacrament of baptism in the case of infants. (On Baptism, 4, 24, 32; NPNF I, IV:461)
It is not to be doubted that the dead are aided by prayers of the holy church, and by the salutary sacrifice, and by the alms, which are offered for their spirits . . . For this, which has been handed down by the Fathers, the universal church observes. (Sermon 172, in Joseph Berington and John Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, three volumes, London: Dolman, 1846; I: 439)
To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you; thus, since Holy Scripture cannot be mistaken, anyone fearing to be misled by the obscurity of this question has only to consult on this same subject this very Church which the Holy Scriptures point out without ambiguity. (Against Cresconius I:33; in Robert B. Eno, Teaching Authority in the Early Church, Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1984, 134)
[L]et the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church . . . (On Christian Doctrine, 3,2:2, NPNF I, II:557)
Which just shows that Augustine was inconsistent.
So much for ‘unanimous consent.’
Which means what? That this is somehow contrary to SS? That souls cannot discern what writings are of God find in it them the object of their faith apart from implicit faith in your church? And that if we concur with her on the NT canon then we must also do so as regards the OT? For these are Catholic polemics.
I'd venture it's become a "mortal" sin for the RCs to continue to post the debunked lie.
So much for ‘unanimous consent.’
No, it just shows that you have taken his comments out of context. In his opening statement he said that he was addressing widowhood:
Not any longer to be in debt of my promise to your request and love in Christ, I have seized the occasion as I could, amid other my very pressing engagements, to write to you somewhat concerning the profession of holy widowhood, forasmuch as, when I was present, you laded me with entreaty, and, when I had not been able to deny you this, you often by letters demanded my promise.The statement of his that you quoted was not intended to a universal principle, but only as regards to the subject of widowhood. But as usual, as they do with Scripture, Protestants take a statement out of context and absolutize it to prove their point, ignoring all the other statements to the contrary. This is how they come to the conclusion of sola fide. There are plenty of passages in the Bible that indicate that sola fide is not true, but Protestants either pretend that they are not there, or twist them to deny their plain meaning. While Protestants accuse Catholics of putting Tradition above Scripture, it is they who place their own tradition—sola fide—above Scripture.
The church fathers taught sola fide.
You still haven’t replied to the quotes I gave you to prove it last thread.
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.