Posted on 01/23/2011 5:12:54 AM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
The catholic (universal) church IS Christ’s church — his bride — and is composed of the believers saved by His shed blood.
NOT the Roman Catholic Church — I have yet to see it anywhere in scripture.
I already have the answer; it’s given in God’s Word. The same word that is so sadly twisted and warped to fit the man-made traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
Hoss
The Council of Trent included the deuterocanonical books in the canon of Scripture, books that Luther rejected in hia canon of Scripture. Luther's canon differs from the Catholic canon, and the canon in common usage in his day. This much cannot be argued.
The question is, by what authority did Luther determine his canon of Scripture? Did he act infallibly?
“Then the disciples were glad....”
Wonder how many disciples Christ had vs. the 12 Apostles...? I know at one point Christ sent “the seventy...”
Kinda monkey-wrenches things, doesn’t it?
Hoss
Which Scripture? The Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant one?
You're begging the question of whether Luther's canon of Scripture was determined infallibly.
Protestants tend to assume the truth of Luther's doctrine of Sola Scriptura. But that is what is in question in this thread.
If Luther didn't act infallibly in determining his canon of Scripture, then his doctrine of "the Bible alone" becomes incoherent, since there would exist no means by which anyone could determine what does and doesn't constitute sacred Scripture.
The spiritually bankrupt and diffuse groups of protestants are perpetually cursed by this division which mitigates against the prayer of Jesus that they all might be one.
To deny the historical fact of the Catholic involvement in the formation of scripture is to deny reality. You can deny the Holy Spirit involvement but the Catholic compilation is a historical given. Even the enemies of the Church concede this salient fact and use it to claim the Church put the bible together for selfish purposes.
No, Luther did not chose the books of the bible for he was only 1100 years late and the Holy Spirit had already worked through the Church.
Uh, no.
Hoss
That's food for thought, Pope Hoss.
Who did?
Pardon my smart-aleck remark, but Jesus didn't issue bound copies of the Bible at Pentecost.
Your argument is essentially irrelevant. Let's assume that the Catholic Church acted fallibly in determining the canon of Scripture. How do we know that Luther acted infallibly in determining his?
That's the important point. Regardless, for those who are interested, the canon of Scripture was effectively settled at the Councils of Carthage and Hippo, and finally settled at Trent.
The Council of Hippo, a local north Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which is the same as the Roman Catholic list today.The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books.
Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books.
The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.
If you actually are, it does.
False, but essentially irrelevant. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct.
Did Luther act infallibly in determining his canon of Scripture? Yes or no?
If not, then Luther's doctrine of "the Bible alone" becomes incoherent, since it would be impossible to know with certainty what does and doesn't constitute sacred Scripture.
If yes, then you have made Luther a pope.
Do Protestants act infallibly when "not counting" the "apocryphal" books of the Bible?
Did Luther?
Which Scriptures? The Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox canon?
The scripture used by Protestants is not disputed by Roman Catholic as scripture, nor is it disputed by Eastern Orthodox.
Those books that were in dispute were not accepted as scripture, just as many early Church fathers did not accept them as scripture and just as the Roman Catholic Church did not accept them as scripture right up to the Protestant Reformation and beyond, until the Council Of Trent, and even then the theological issue was not resolved as to the canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books.
The Council Of Trent was itself a reaction to the Protestant Reformation.
So, what is your point? Are you still hunting in vain for a Protestant pope? I can assure you there is none, certainly not Martin Luther, nor John Calvin or Knox or Wesley. The head of the Church, the body of believers, is Jesus Christ.
The errors in the historical assumptions you are apparently citing without attribution have been addressed in the links kindly provided to you by Mr. Rogers earlier in the thread. It continues to be apparent that you did not avail yourself of the information contained therein.
Actually, that is exactly what is admitted in your arguments.
To accept the authority of the Church, at any time is to accept its authority at all times.
To deny the authority of the Church is to deny any and all authority of all entities, leaving all Christians adrift in a sea of confusion and contradiction.
It seems in this and other posts, you reject Catholic Church authority and concede it in others.
Though there were some in the Church who disputed, debated and may have even rejected the Apocryphal books, as it stands and has stood for centuries, those books are a part of the canon of Scripture because the official teaching and declarative voice of the Church has spoken. We can be sure that those books are Scriptural as are all the others comprising the Catholic Bible.
In the West nearly any person who could read could read the Vulgate Bible, since for most of the period Vulgate Latin was the only written language in Western Europe. The first appearances of proto-French and proto-German were in the Treaty of Verdun, written for Charlemagne's grandsons. There was no significant literature in these languages, or Anglo-Saxon or Welsh for well into the second millennium AD. At that time Italian WAS Vulgate Latin and Spain was essentially an islamic country. The problem was the absence of libraries and the high cost of buying a bible, since it involved thousands of hours of hand copying, not something your average shopkeeper could afford.
What follows is a lot to digest, and i am not going to get into another extended FR debate on all this, which might be better done with the sources, but provide this as a supplement to what has been said here.
It is a common misconception that Luther was basically acting alone and in a summary manner in rejecting the apocrypha, and did not include James and Hebrews in his Bible, and the we look to Luther as a pope, but in reality the rejecting and questioning of a few books by Luther, whose views were part inn a process of development, was based upon the judgment of scholars of Rome and scholarly principles. Luther and the Reformers treated the Apocrypha as did many in the centuries preceding them, which was that these books are not to be held as equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read. More.
Substantial dissent existed through the centuries and right into Trent, even among some of the best scholars over the apocryphal books. (Hubert Jedin Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent: St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947; pp. 278, 281-282). Among them was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin writes that his position was “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).
Despite decrees by early councils such as Hippo, Carthage and Florence, the decision of Trent in 1546 was the first “infallible” and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon, (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent : Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17) possibly after a vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%). This definition, coming over 1400 hundreds years after the last book was written, was issued in reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformation. And in so doing, it arguably chose to follow a weaker tradition in pronouncing the apocryphal books to be inspired. In addition, some of the books of the Pseudepigrapha were invoked by some church fathers, and found their way into other canons of various Eastern churches.
Thus , if the canon list was dogma prior to Trent, then there were many Catholics throughout history who would have been de facto excommunicated. More.
Jedin also explains that Luther “was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude. Of the latter three he states, "They are of less authority than those which are certainly Holy Scripture."63 Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64 http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P137_49234 Nor was Luther the first to have “alone” in Rm. 3:28.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states also, "only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense, and the function of the magisterium ordinarium has been concerned with the effective promulgation and maintenance of what has been formally defined by the magisterium solemne or may be legitimately deduced from its definitions." http://www.bible-researcher.com/gelasius.html
The oft made claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to later Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and the prior claim depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that is was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm
Therefore, as shown in previous debates, what can be said is that the Roman Catholic canon was largely settled early by the time of Carthage, but not without disagreement by notable Catholics scholars until Trent settled the issue, when it provided the “first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures,” (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (Rockford: Tan, 1978), Fourth Session, Footnote #4, p. 17; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm; cf. New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390) though this was not exactly the same canon affirmed by such councils as Carthage, but which ended the debate which went on among Roman Catholic scholars right into Trent. (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 278, 281-282.“ More . And that in Trent itself there was some debate about the apocrypha, and that Luther sided with some notable Catholic authorities in rejecting the it, yet he commented favorably upon 1 Maccabees as being able to be included. He questioned the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because the early church categorized these books as antilegomena. Yet Luther 's Bible contained the disputed books, though they were placed last in order, while his views on some of these books changed in later years.
As for James and Hebrews,
“He had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end. In his Preface to Hebrews, which comes first in the series, he says, "Up to this point we have had to do with the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation."'
Regarding James, in his preface he states,
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15.”
In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ.
“Luther's translation of the Bible contained all of its books. Luther also translated and included the Apocrypha, saying, "These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read." He expressed his thoughts on the canon in prefaces placed at the beginning of particular Biblical books. In these prefaces, he either questioned or doubted the canonicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (his Catholic contemporaries, Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan, likewise questioned the canonicity of certain New Testament books). Of his opinion, he allows for the possibility of his readers to disagree with his conclusions. Of the four books, it is possible Luther's opinion fluctuated on two (Hebrews and Revelation). Luther was of the opinion that the writers of James and Jude were not apostles, therefore these books were not canonical. Still, he used them and preached from them.” Five More Luther Myths
Luther's questioned Hebrews by pointing out that throughout Church history it has had a “reputation” of uncertain canonicity. Erasmus had a critical attitude to the same four New Testament books Luther did. Cardinal Cajetan questioned the canonical status of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude (among others).
“The Epistle of James is classed by Eusebius (in Bk. III. chap. 25) among the antilegomena (disputed books). The ancient testimonies for its authenticity are very few: It was used by no one, except Hermas, down to the end of the second century. Iren`us seems to have known the epistle (his works exhibit some apparent reminiscences of it), but he nowhere directly cites it. The Muratorian Fragment omits it, but the Syriac Peshito contains it, and Clement of Alexandria shows a few faint reminiscences of it in his extant works, and according to Eusebius VI. 14, wrote commentaries upon "Jude and the other catholic epistles." (see Bk. III. chap. 25, note 1).” Source: Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Series II, Vol. 1 http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/footnote/fn14.htm
“Most writing from before 200 do not mention the Epistle of James. One significant text does quote James: The Shepherd of Hermas, written before 140 M66. (The theologian and biblical scholar, Origen, quotes James extensively between 230 and 250. He mentions that James was Jesus' brother, but does not make it clear if the letter is scripture M138. Hippolytus and Tertullian, from early in the third century, do not mention or quote James. Cyprian of Carthage, in the middle of the third century, also makes no mention. The "Muratorian Canon," from around 200, lists and comments on New Testament books, but fails to mention James, Hebrews, and 1 and 2 Peter. Yet by 340 Eusebius of Caesarea, an early Christian historian, acknowledges that James is both canonical and orthodox, and widely read. However, he categorizes it, along with the other catholic epistles, as "disputed texts" M203. Two Greek New Testaments from that time each include James, along with the other catholic epistles M207. In 367 Athanasius lists the 27 New Testament books we presently use as the definitive canon M212. But the battle for James was not won. Bishops in 428 and 466 rejected all the catholic epistles M215. Early bibles from Lebanon, Egypt, Armenia, India and China do not include James before the sixth century M219. A ninth century manuscript from Mount Sinai leaves out the catholic epistles and the Syriac Church, headquartered in Kerala, India, continues to use a lectionary without them still today M220. — James and Canon: The Early Evidence)
Also, as one researcher states, neither was Rome completely unified in its soteriology before Trent, and between extremes “were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition." — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52.
As for the claim that Scripture has no infallible list, this is true, but it also evidences that writings were recognized as being such (and faith was preserved) by Jesus time without an assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM), as its means of establishment was essentially the same as how a true man of God is established as such, by his/her unique qualities and supernatural effects, which conform to that which God prior established by the same means. The manna from heaven owes its enduring acceptance to what it is and thus does, more than church decrees, as valid and helpful as they can be.
And there is also no infallible list of traditions, nor a complete list of all infallible definitions. And the “stewardship=infallibility logic is invalid, and would require submission to the Judaism.
This inviolable authority was instituted upon whose authority? The magisterium? That's convenient.
"Just Because We Say So" as holy writ. What a concept. Paul rebuked Peter in the Bible. You regard him as your first Pope. He didn't accept Peter's authority in that instance, rather he upbraided and corrected him.
The Church of Rome would do well to accept rebuke and correct its ways as did Peter. Instead, those with legitimate concerns over corruption and immorality and bad doctrine have been met repeatedly throughout history with arrogance and being outcast and even murderous rage.
This is not the reaction of a Godly institution. An institution that won't purge itself of open Sodomites because it puts more faith in it's own "because we said so" as far as their being priests than it does in the Bible that utterly condemns such behavior in any man or woman, let alone one purporting to represent God.
The pope does not act or speak arbitrarily nor does he do so from within a bubble. He does so in consultation and prayer with other leaders of the Church.
I notice in the recounting of Mathew, you fail to mention that the remedy for one whose brother has offended him is to bring it to the church. And, who in the church would resolve it? The elders, the leaders, the priests, IOW the ones to whom Jesus was speaking when he gave them authority. Or did, as you seem to indicate, Jesus mean that we should air our offenses in front of the entire body of believers and then what? a vote? Jesus speaks here quite clearly of the authority of the church and its leaders.
Does the NT also not tell us that the Apostles appointed and laid their hands upon men, conferring upon them authority, in every community where they first brought the gospel? Or did they waltz in, proclaim the good news and then mosey along leaving in their wake no authoritative voice?
The authority of the Church is not dictatorial. Like in the US, though there is one president, his authority and council is done with others and not alone, but it his signature that makes policy final law.
Here again, you have reaffirmed the original premise of the thread.
If one accepts Scripture and divinely inspired and inerrant in its truths, by whom or what authority does one accept it?
See my earlier post regarding the schizophrenia of thought it must take to say that the Church’s authority can be trusted in light of which books are Scriptural, yet is not to be trusted in other matters. Or that it takes to accept Scripture at all since no one, and there is no question of this, not a single one of us has come to that faith organically and on our own.
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.