Posted on 04/03/2013 3:43:07 PM PDT by NYer
Q: Okay, so what is the Christian account of how revelation occurred?
As Elmer Fudd might say, “Vewy, vewy swowly.” Divine revelation didn’t happen in a blinding flash—such as God dropping the Summa Theologiae on top of a mountain and waiting for people to invent the Latin language so they could read it. (Though He could have given them magical spectacles that would translate it for them….) It seems that God preferred to slowly unfold His personality and His will for us through the course of tangled, messy human history. We might wonder why, and call up the divine customer service line to ask why in heck human nature arrived in the mail without the instructions. I don’t pretend to know what He was thinking here, but I find it aesthetically fitting that our knowledge of God evolved in much the way that animal species did, over a long time and by fits and starts, with sudden leaps whenever God saw fit, until finally the world was ready to receive the final product: in creation, man, in revelation, the Son of Man. God seems to prefer planting seeds to winding up robots.
So we start with traces of a primitive monotheism among some scattered peoples of the world—which might have been long-faded memories of what Adam told his children about the whole “apple incident,” combined with crude deductions that boil down to “Nothing comes from nothing.” But mankind pretty much wandered around with no more than that for quite some time, and this was when he employed the inductive method to discover the hemorrhoid god.
The first incident in Jewish-Christian scriptures that suggests God revealed Himself to us after that is the rather discouraging narrative of Noah. According to the story, the human race went so wrong so fast that God decided to backspace over most of it, leaving only a single righteous family, trapped on a stinky boat with way too many pets. When they landed, they had no more idea of what to do with themselves than the cast of Gilligan’s Island, so God gave them instructions: We call this the Covenant of Noah. The Jews believe that these are the only commandments God gave to the Gentiles—7 of them, instead of 613—and that the rest of us can please God just by keeping them. That’s the reason that Jews don’t generally try to make converts. (Who are we to run around making things harder for people? Feh!) The Jewish Talmud enumerates the 7 laws of Noah as follows:
Most of this sounds fairly obvious and commonsensical—though we might wonder why it was necessary to tell people to stop pulling off pieces of live animals and eating them. They must have gotten into some pretty bad habits while they were still stuck on that ark.
Q: That ark must have been the size of Alabama…
I know, I know.
Q. …to fit all those elephants, hippos, rhinos, tree sloths, polar bears, gorillas, lions and moose…
Okay, smart guy.
Q. …not to mention breeding pairs of more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Sure they’re mostly small, but those creepy-crawlies add up.
Spoken like a true-believing member of Campus Crusade for Cthulu, complete with a bad case of acne and involuntary celibacy. Maybe you should focus on Onan instead of Noah.
Look, there’s a reason why Catholics don’t read the bible in an exclusively literal sense, and haven’t since the time of Origen (+253). The Church looks at the books of scripture according to the genres in which they were written (history, allegory, wisdom, prophecy, and so on). And this story, clearly, was intended as allegory—which means that on top of some historical content (and there’s flotsam from flood-narratives in the basement of most ancient cultures) the writer piled up details to make a point. Unlike liberal Protestants, we don’t use this principle to explain away Jesus’ miracles and the moral law. Nor are we fundamentalists who take everything in the bible literally—except for “This is my body,” (Luke 22: 19) “Thou art Peter,” (Matthew 16: 18) and “No, your pastor can’t get divorced.” (Cleopatra 7: 14) The Church responded to biblical criticism with appropriate skepticism at first, and accepted the useful parts (like reading original languages and looking for ancient manuscripts), without throwing out the traditional mode of reading the bible in light of how the Church Fathers traditionally understood it.
Q. Why should the Church be the interpreter of the bible?
In the case of the New Testament, the Church had transcribed the books; shouldn’t we own the copyright to our own memoirs? When the list of accepted gospels and epistles was drawn up, there were more surplus candidates milling around than in downtown Manchester, New Hampshire, before a primary—some of them inspirational but probably inauthentic, like the Protoevangelium that tells the story of Mary’s childhood; others creepily gnostic, like the “Gospel of Thomas,” which has Jesus using His “superpowers” to wreak revenge on His schoolmates. (That gospel is always popular, since it shows Jesus doing exactly what each of us would really do in His place.) The decision on which books were divinely inspired was based largely on the evidence of the liturgy: which books had been used in churches for services in the most places for the longest. As I like to tell Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door: that bible you’re waving at me was codified by a council of Catholic bishops who prayed to Mary and the saints, baptized infants, and venerated the Eucharist. So you could say that as the original, earthly author and editor, the Church has a better claim of knowing how to read it than the reporters at National Geographic—who every Christmas or Easter discover some new and tantalizing scrap of papyrus containing gnostic sex magic tips or Judas’ “To-do” list.
In the case of the Old Testament, the Church draws heavily on how Jews traditionally read their own scriptures—but with one important and obvious difference. We are the descendants of the faction of Jews who accepted Christ as the Messiah and evangelized the gentiles, all the while considering themselves the “faithful remnant” who’d remained true to the faith of Abraham. So we see throughout the Old Testament foreshadowings of Christ, for instance in Abraham’s sacrifice, and Isaiah’s references to the “suffering servant.” The Jews who were skeptical of Jesus believed that they were heroically resisting a blasphemous false prophet who’d tempted them to idolatry. As the Church spread and gained political clout, and Christians began to shamefully mistreat the people from whom they’d gotten monotheism in the first place, there surely was genuine heroism entailed in standing firm. I often wonder how many Jews would be drawn to Jesus if they could separate Him from the sins committed against their great-grandparents in His name….
The version of the Old Testament that Catholics and Orthodox use is different from what Jews use today. Our version, based on the Septuagint translation into Greek, is somewhat longer, and includes some later documents that Jews accepted right up to the time Saint Paul converted—books that illustrate a lot of the mature developments in Judaism which led up to the coming of Christ. The very fact that Christian apostles were using these books may have led the rabbis to eventually reject them. (Since the biblical references to Purgatory can be found in these books, Martin Luther and the Anglicans also excluded them.) Ironically, the Book of Maccabees exists in Catholic bibles but not Jewish ones, and right up until Vatican II we had a Feast of the Maccabees—which means that you could call Chanukah a Catholic holiday. But don’t tell the judges in New York City, or they’ll pull all the menorahs out of the schools.
A repost:
“Yes, they could.”
What, is Roman exegesis summed up in the ability to say “I disagree!”?
“Sez who? You?”
Says Jerome, whose argument I took, and the plain teachings of the scripture that do not hold that a man can supplant God in the forgiveness of sins.
Besides, when your Priests are not too busy molesting little boys, they have need of forgiveness themselves. Such is the extreme foolishness of depending on men for forgiveness instead of God.
“Oh, you mean James, Bishop of Jerusalem, presiding over the Conference in Jerusalem. I see.”
From the Catechism:
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
884 “The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.”405 But “there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”406
Thus, if Rome is correct, then James, who was presiding over the council, contradicted Peter’s judgment and declared his OWN sentence, must, in fact, be the Pope.
“This is an argument from silence”
Indeed, if the early Christians did not see fit to mention that there is a POPE somewhere in whom UNIVERSAL AUTHORITY was owed, then it is illogical to claim that any existed.
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
If Ignatius DOES say that the head of Polycarp is GOD, and not Peter who is here called the HEAD OF THE CHURCH, I can see it as nothing less than a direct contradiction of Roman theology.
From the Catechism: “The episcopal college and its HEAD, the Pope”.
“Tertullian argues for Apostolic succession through the bishop of Rome from St. Peter to Clement.”
Tertullian also argues against the Eucharist being the literal body of Christ:
“Wherefore, because they thought his saying hard and intolerable, as if he had really decreed that his flesh was to be eaten by them, in order that he might place salvation in the spirit, he first said, It is the spirit which quickeneth, and then added, the flesh profiteth nothing, that is to say, to quickening. And what he meant by the spirit, follows, the words which I have spoken are spirit and life. As above, he who hears my words and believes in him, who sent me, has eternal life, and .shall not come into judgment, but shall pass from death to life. Therefore, appointing the word to be life-giving, because the word is spirit and life, he called the same his flesh, because the word was made flesh, and therefore was to be desired as the origin of life, to be devoured by hearing, to be chewed in the mind, and to be digested by faith.” — Upon the Resurrection of the Body
“The bread which he had taken and distributed to his disciples he made his body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body.”
Tertullian holds the chairs of the Apostles as all being equal, and lists Rome as merely another “place” in a long list of places where the seats of the Apostles presides:
“But come now, thou who art impatient to exercise thy curiosity more profitably in the work of thy salvation ; survey the apostolical churches in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside over their stations, in which their own letters are recited, uttering the voice and representing the presence of each of them. Is Achaia nearest to thee, thou hast Corinth. If thou art not far from Macedonia, thou hast •the Philippians and the Thessalonians. If thou canst go to Asia, thou hast Ephesus, but if thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome, whence to us also authority is near at hand,” (On the Prescriptions against Heretics)
Confession and penance in the church is Public, not secret as it is in the Roman church:
“For the most part they were wont to nourish their prayers by fastings, to groan, to cry, to lament day and night to the Lord their God, to prostrate themselves before the priests, to embrace the knees of the saints, to impose embassies of deprecation upon all the brethren. Confession comprehends all these things. Many however presume to avoid this work, as being a publishing of their condition to put it off from day to day, thinking more of their shame than their salvation.... But the church is Christ. When therefore you clasp the knees of the brethren, you touch Christ, and you supplicate Christ. And in the same manner when they weep over you, Christ suffers and Christ intercedes with the Father.... Whether is it better to be condemned in secret, than to be openly absolved?” (Concerning Penance)
According to Tertulian, the rule of Faith is scripture, not in the decision of the Magesterium:
“Let the school of Hermogenes show that it is written, if it is not written, let him fear the curse directed against those, who add or di minish.” — Against Hermogenes,
According to Tertullian, idolatry is service to ANY kind of image:
“Every form or little form must be called an idol. Wherefore idolatry is the service and attendance of every kind of idol.... God forbids as well the making as the worshipping of an idol. In order to root out that which is the substance of idolatry, the divine law proclaims, Thou shalt not make an idol ; and by adding, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven or upon the earth or in the sea, prohibits the act to the whole world.”(On Idolatry)
So, are you sure Tertullian isn’t a better friend to me than he is to you?
These books do not make any claim to inspiration. On the contrary, the prologue of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) asks pardon from the readers for all inexactitudes: “I entreat you... pardon us for those things wherein we may seem, while we follow the image of wisdom, to come short in the composition of words.” The author of Maccabees concludes by saying, “I also will here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me” (2 Maccabees 15:28, 39). That is not the language of divine inspiration!
First Maccabees notes that there were no prophets in Israel at that time (1 Maccabees 4:46; 9:27; 14:41). Since the New Testament frequently refers to the Scriptures as “the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; 24:44; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; Romans 3:21), how could a writing that specifically states that there were no prophets at the time when it was written be called Scripture?
What is more serious, the apocrypha teach doctrines that contradicts Scripture (see, for instance, Sirach 3:3,30, in contrast with Galatians 2:16,21; 3:10-14; Tobit 12:9 contradicts 1 John 1:7 and Hebrews 9:22; Wisdom 8:19,20 contradicts Romans 3:10). They encourage practices that do not conform to Scripture (Sirach 12:4-7 disagrees with Luke 6:27-38 and Matthew 5:43-48).
A good summation. I doubt the Romanists here will spend more than a second thinking on it, though.
“Are you not aware that priests go to Confession too?”
Does not the Catholic church say that absolution cannot be obtained without contrition, and that contrition is not possible in an unregenerate state of sin?
If an active, serial child molester does not qualify as an unrepentent, unregenerate sinner, then I do not know what does.
You need to cite the sources you cut and paste from. Copyright violation places Free Republic at risk.
Peace be with you
I can’t judge these people. I don’t know their hearts. How is it that you seem to know there hearts?
Are you playing God?
Just know that priests also go to confession.
You would be amazed (from stories from priests) how many people come back week after week confessing the same sin, whether it be pronography or adultery or alcoholism. They really do mean to amend their ways — that’s part of Confession, BTW, but fall into sin again. At least they are willing to recognize their sin.
You are speculating about what may or may not have transpired within the confessional and the heart of a priest in a hypothetical case. However, the relative sinfulness of the priest is not sufficient to prevent Christ from acting through him. My offer still stands to explain in personna Christi and alter Christus to you.
Peace be with you
“Knowing that the bible predates the Protestants is kinda relevant to the topic at hand.”
So, why is it that you disagree with Augustine on the Predestination of the Saints, and salvation, consequently, through the grace of God and not by man’s merit?
WHAT IS THE VIEW OF THE PELAGIANS, AND WHAT OF THE SEMI-PELAGIANS, CONCERNING PREDESTINATION.
“But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that “having received God’s commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case,” they say, “He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. “But we say,” say they, “that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work.” But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calleth” [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, “of Him that believeth”); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said concerning this matter need not be repeated.”
http://www.covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html
These, you would claim, are Protestant innovations made upon the teachings of Paul. But, in reality, they are the Gospel as delivered to us by the Apostles themselves, which have always existed, long before Calvin or Luther.
So why are you in rebellion against God and His church, as defined by the Apostles?
Gal 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: (7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Is this curse on me, or is it on the Roman church which teaches innovations that the word of God does not know?
“You need to cite the sources you cut and paste from. Copyright violation places Free Republic at risk.
Peace be with you”
I was quoting the poster right above me. I’ll link to this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=3003863%2C324
“Knowing that the bible predates the Protestants is kinda relevant to the topic at hand.”
This comment doesn’t address the point I made about why the answer wouldn’t be relevant. If you want me to answer some hypothetical question on this subject, then the situation you construct must fit the situation we are speaking about, or my answer wouldn’t have any relevance to the original topic. Yours did not, for the reasons I explained. If you want to re-pose the question so that it fits the context, then my answer could be relevant and I’d be happy to give it.
“Absolutely I do.”
How so, when you do not accept the same canon that Jewish authorities have declared? Or when you express belief in the divinity of Christ, which the Jewish authorities denounce as a heresy and a blasphemy?
“As opposed to crediting it to Luther? Absolutely.”
Nobody credits the Bible to Luther, so this statement is a red herring. This isn’t a multiple choice question: was the Bible written by God, or was it written by the Catholic church? If you pick one, you must deny the other.
“How is a statement of historical fact arrogant?”
Well, it wasn’t a statement of fact, but a boast. You said it was “our book”, as if you owned God’s Word (note the possessive?), and then you claimed Protestants “nicked it”, against asserting ownership of what is rightfully God’s. God revealed the Word to men, and commanded us to share it freely with anyone who would hear. It is not possible to own what is not yours, and it is not possible to “nick” what is freely given to all by God’s grace.
“You are speculating about what may or may not have transpired within the confessional and the heart of a priest in a hypothetical case.”
Yes, only in a hypothetical case, and in the general sense, and not about any person in particular, so there is nothing forbidden about that.
“However, the relative sinfulness of the priest is not sufficient to prevent Christ from acting through him.”
Then there is nothing preventing Christ from acting through a heretical priest, who is in the same position, being in de facto excommunication. Yet nobody seems to suggest that it would be efficacious to seek absolution from them.
The Catholic church does teach that defrocked priests can administer sacraments in an emergency, but only with the caveat that it should only be done in a situation of the direst need, where there is no alternative. Obviously, this caveat means that seeking the sacraments from such a source is not the most efficacious method, even if you hold it possible for sacraments thus administered to be valid.
Yet, a defrocked priest is still in communion with the church, even if they have stumbled in their calling. A unrepentant sinner, priest or no, is not in communion with the church, so it stands to reason that seeking the sacraments from them would be even less efficacious, and therefore less advisable.
Your argument reveals a significant misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. The sacraments are efficacacious, not because of the holiness of the priest, but because it is Christ himself who acts through him. I have offered several times now to let you know what the teaching of the Church is, not so that you come to accept and believe it, but so that you can at lease intelligently express and argue the facts
Peace be with you
“The sacraments are efficacacious, not because of the holiness of the priest, but because it is Christ himself who acts through him.”
This highlights my point though. If the holiness of the priest doesn’t matter, then why are people warned against seeking absolution from defrocked priests? It is because it is not seen to be as advisable as seeking them from a legitimate priest. Yet, Christ is not the one who is contributing to a different condition, since He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and cannot be diminished. So, there must be some contributing factor regarding the state of the priest which leads to the distinction.
This is all kind of a sidetrack though, since if a priest is an unrepentant sinner, then Scripture tells us that they are unfit to hold any position in the church, since they are in rebellion against God. Sure, Christ can act through those in rebellion against Him, but that doesn’t mean that we who believe should hold those in an outwardly obvious state of rebellion in any regard, ordination or no. Paul said such people were never with us in the first place, so I doubt their ordination could really be valid, regardless of the Catholic doctrine on the matter.
There is no Hebrew canon that contains those Apocryphal books. Saying that the Septuagint (a GREEK translation) supposedly contained them is no proof that the Jews EVER accepted those books as equal to the commonly recognized inspired Old Testament ones. What Boogieman stated is accurate. You presume to rebuke non-Catholic Christians for "changing" the Catholic canon which you say existed before Protestantism, yet Catholicism did the same thing to the Hebrew Old Testament, which existed well before Christianity came about. Why did Catholicism have to impose those books into the Old Testament? If they believed they were Divinely-inspired and belonged to the Church, why couldn't they have kept them separated or as a prelude to the New Testament? Paul said that unto the Jews were given the "oracles of God". If these extra books were NEVER recognized by them as inspired, then what gives Christians the right to impose them upon the Jews?
JFTR..."Protestantism" was not the one to change anything. The Old Testament is the same and so is the New Testament of what ALL Christians have recognized as coming from Almighty God. Though there may not have been an "official" Jewish canon until the first century A.D., it is indisputable that those books that make up the OT were widely recognized as being a closed canon (rule or standard). Some of the arguments that demonstrate the canon was closed after Malachi (425 B.C.) are:
2. Jesus also referred to the 3-part division of Hebrew scripture in Luke 24:44, referring to the, “Law of Moses.. the prophets …the Psalms”. This reference confirms the current division of Hebrew canon, which excludes the books known as the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonicals.
3. Josephus (37-100 A.D), the Jewish historian also affirmed in his arguments in Contra Apion 1:7-8 the number of books in the Hebrew canon was numbered at 22, which according to Jewish numbering is the same as the 39 in the Protestant Old Testament. (See Chapter 5, Old Testament Canon).
"Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty and contain the record of all time." Contra Apion 1:7-8
4. Jewish tradition also taught in the Babylonian Talmud, the books in the Hebrew “Canon” are the identical 39 books, which are in both the Protestant and Catholic Bibles, to the exclusion of the Apocrypha. (See Talmud Babylon Baba Batra 14b) (http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6_The_Apocrypha_The_Septugint/index.htm)
I believe the Jews have every right to reject the Apocryphal books as equal to the inspired ones and they do so for good reasons. Far better ones, I'm afraid, than those who insist on keeping them. The standard for the rule of faith MUST be based on the revealed word of God as He inspired the writers to commit to the written form - a form GOD has preserved for us all.
GPH was commenting on what I posted at #313. I gave the attribution source there.
Sacraments administered by "defrocked" Catholic deacons, priests and bishops remain valid because upon ordination such priests remain priests for ever in the order of Melchizedek. However, It would be illicit. A priest who has been laicized or suspended or excommunicated is not to say Mass, but their Masses are still considered valid.
Peace be to you
What’s the oldest complete extant manuscript of these books? The Greek or the Hebrew?
Taking something and then later refusing to acknowledge authorship and the Catholic contribution? Nicking it is actually a rather kind assessment.
“was the Bible written by God, or was it written by the Catholic church?”
Was Luther saved or was he Protestant? This is a fun game.
“So why are you in rebellion against God and His church, as defined by the Apostles?”
You would have me abandon a church founded in the first century for one founded in the fifteenth?
“So, are you sure Tertullian isn’t a better friend to me than he is to you?”
Given as you don’t even believe in the existence of authoritative bishops today, yes, I believe he would side with me.
Looking over what you said - bishops have authority in their own areas - it is customary to have the Bishop of Jerusalem open things up. As for infalliability - this is a consistant problem.
You seem to believe that a Pope can never be wrong, and that a Pope can never be corrected. Yes, a Pope can be wrong and yes a pope can be corrected. Infalliability comes from the Magisterium, and the Pope’s infalliability stems from this.
If you had read the entirety of the catechism, you would understand this point.
Regarding "I am sorry you feel the need to misinterpret you," I am sorry that you are back to your usual self in plainly attributing ill motive, such as was so often seen before (and worse ) before telling the RM to delete your account due it becoming a "cesspool."
And I fail to see where i interpreted your brevity as obfuscation, unless you think my taking issue with your description of Jerome's stance as stating that he "knew of no Jews who considered the Deuterocanonical books as a part of Jewish canon or Scripture," rather than denying canonicity of DC books.
Or my critique of the attributions of Jerome being shown referencing DCs as Scripture, which i affirmed he did, but stated, as shown, that this was a being a matter of interpretation as to whether this amounted to an affirmation of unquestioned full divine inspiration on his part, contradicting his earlier claim.
And to that i will add that, having look at some of the references, sometimes an expression is referenced to DC books which is not referenced in the original and which can be to Scripture or a Scriptural truth, and that otherwise Jerome is using the term "Scripture" in its broad sense, if he is not contradicting his earlier claims in which he clearly disallowed DC books as being canonical, which change i allow is possible, even if not formally stated.
As a matter of practical principle it is a waste of your time an mine to attempt to refute the decisions of the Magisterium with errant sources and published opinions. The 73 book Canon of the Bible was affirmed by the Church in 382 and reaffirmed multiple times since. That is all I require.
And as the latter is the case for RCs, they cannot concede any evidence as impugning Rome in such an issue as this, but it is they who typically launch the attack by asserting Luther was a maverick in dissenting from an indisputable canon, which thus results in countering evidence, and more denials by RCs that there was scholarly debate, and that had some substantial company. Etc.
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.